Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, KING'S COLLEGE (LEASE) BILL [Lords]

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Bills read a Second time and committed.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg to move,
That the Amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

SCHEDULE

Standing Orders page 100, leave out Fees to be taken by the Shorthand Writer and insert:—

VII. FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE SHORTHAND WRITER


For each day he shall attend



Home
£9·75


Distance of more than 60 miles from Charing Cross
£11·70


For the transcript or his notes, per folio of 72 words —



where carbon copies of transcript are supplied
19p


where no carbon copies of transcript are supplied
24p


carbon copy, per folio of 72 words
1p


where evidence is sound recorded
32p

The Amendment provides for an increase in the fees to be taken by the Shorthand Writer to the House. There has been no revision of these fees for three years. The present increases, which average between 8 and 9 per cent., have been approved by the Treasury.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Coal Industry (Dispute)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet decided if he can make an estimate of the total loss to the gross national product for 1972 that has resulted from the miners strike; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the coal dispute on his forecasts for investment and economic growth in 1972.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): No firm estimate can be made until we know how quickly full coal production can be restored.

Dr. Gilbert: Is not this an extraordinary state of affairs? Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling us that the Government at no time made any calculation in the national interest, and in the face of the first miners' strike for 30 years, of what the cost of the strike would be to the country?

Mr. Barber: I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard my answer. He asked whether I could make an estimate of the total loss to the gross national product for 1972 that has resulted from the miners' strike. My answer is that until we know how quickly full coal production can be restored we cannot make an estimate.

Mr. Duffy: Given the shattering of the Government's economic policy—especially on prices and incomes—and the widespread industrial dislocation consequent upon the miners' dispute, can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that the same confidence can still be entertained in industrial circles about the right hon. Gentleman's own target figure for growth and their own intentions for investment?

Mr. Barber: If the lost industrial output is made good fairly quickly the forecast growth in the gross national product may be still achieved. The fact is that we cannot be sure as yet.

Mr. Evelyn King: In view of the fact that in Europe about 60 per cent. of primary fuel derives from sources other than coal, is not it the case that, if we were not so old-fashioned, these problems would not arise?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has made his point. It is a somewhat wider one than is covered by this Question.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) mean that before starting this catastrophic confrontation he made no estimate of the likely loss to the nation resulting from this sort of confrontation?

Sir G. Nabarro: An absolutely ridiculous supplementary.

Mr. Barber: My answer means precisely what I said. I think that it is crystal clear. Until we know the facts that I set out it is not possible to make anything like an accurate estimate. A variety of consequences follow from the miners' strike. There is little doubt that the strike has made the unemployment situation worse, without estimating the effect on the gross national product. When I say that, I am not talking simply about those temporarily stopped. I am afraid that this also is a part of the price which has to be paid for the strike.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the major consequences is the permanent loss of a part of the former market for coal on account of greatly increased prices for coal and the miners working themselves out of their jobs?

Mr. Barber: I was not referring to the settlement; I was referring to the strike. Certainly the strike will not have done the miners very much good in that respect.

Nationalised Industries (Investment Programmes)

Mr. Strang: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the current rate of investment in the United Kingdom by British industrialists, he will facilitate a further increase in the investment programmes of the nationalised industries.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Since my right hon. Friend's statement on 23rd November,

arrangements have been agreed with the nationalised industries almost doubling the £100 million figure he then gave the House. Thus, investment projects totalling around £200 million have been brought forward to the period up to 1973–74.

Mr. Strang: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the present level of investment in the United Kingdom is appallingly low and that the measures which have been taken to encourage private investment have been disappointingly ineffective? Does he agree that there is scope for a further increase in the investment programmes of the nationalised industries and that this would not only help to reduce the dismal rate of unemployment but could, for example, in the steel industry, make a positive contribution to our balance of payments?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is taking too little account of how much has already been done to stimulate growth and investment. I refer to £1,400 million off taxation, £110 million of post-war credits to be repaid this year, and £850 million of expenditure of one sort or another in the regions and elsewhere. This represents a formidable total.

Mr. Scott: Is not one of the real barriers to investment the fear on the part of investors that at some time in future the Government will prefer to maintain the external parity of sterling rather than our domestic rate of growth? Will my hon. Friend make clear that this is the reverse of the truth?

Mr. Jenkin: The point which my hon. Friend has made has already been put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot add to anything which he has already said on this subject.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the unused resources in heavy electrical engineering and the consequent unemployment in that industry, will the Financial Secretary tell us when the Vinter Committee will report so that the industry can be given some jobs to get on with?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman's question is not for me. I should remind him that part of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend was the acceleration of the new power station


at Ince, Cheshire, which will bring valuable jobs to the heavy electrical engineering industry.

Income Tax

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the tax threshold as a percentage of average earnings for a married man with two children under 11 years of age in 1963–64, 1970–71 and 1972–73.

Mr. Jenkin: For 1963–64 and 1970–71 the percentages were 82·1 and 54·4 per cent. respectively. The figures take account of the family allowance and, in the later year, of clawback. I cannot, of course, give figures for 1972–73.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and assure him that the last figure is a misprint. I was not seeking to lure him into revealing any of his right hon. Friend's Budget secrets.
Does he agree that these figures demonstrate dramatically the way that, under the previous Administration, the tax threshold fell as a percentage of average earnings and that, had my Question been printed in the way I meant it to be tabled, the figures for 1971–72 would have shown a small but welcome improvement in the situation? May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue that trend in his next Budget?

Mr. Jenkin: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's struggle with the printers. However, my answer shows that millions of ordinary working people earning below average wages who were not paying tax at all in 1964 were, by 1970—after six years of Labour Government—paying tax at the standard rate. My right hon. Friend's Budget last year has begun to reverse the trend.

Mr. Taverne: At a time when record unemployment urgently calls for considerable tax relief and the marginal rate of taxation—which affects the amount of earnings which one keeps in one's pocket—is much higher at the bottom of the income scale that at the top, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to give far higher priority to raising the threshold than to giving tax relief to those in the top income bracket?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) at least assured me that he was not attempting to exact Budget secrets. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not attempt to do so either.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield of income tax in the year 1971–72.

Mr. Barber: The Budget estimate was £6,491 million.

Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the first eight months of this financial year, according to figures published by the Treasury, the yield of income tax has gone up by 12 per cent., compared with an increase in incomes of about 8 per cent., which means that income tax is taking a greater proportion of earned incomes as the months go by? Will he bear this in mind over the next fortnight with a view to reducing the yield of income tax, either by an adjustment of the standard rate or, as I would prefer, an adjustment of the allowances?

Mr. Barber: An estimate of the out-turn for the same year—1971–72—will be published in the Financial Statement and the Budget Report. As my hon. Friend knows, it is not the practice to publish revisions of the Budget estimate. I had better merely say that I have noted what he has said. Any further observations from me would be inappropriate, if not imprudent, at this time.

Personal Incomes

Mr. Willey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average pre-tax personal income for the latest available period in the United Kingdom, South-East and North-East England. respectively.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The following average incomes per head for 1969–70 are produced by dividing the incomes for income tax purposes by the population.

£


United Kingdom
528


South-East Region
631


Northern Region
422

The figures of the population include children and other people without incomes below the effective exemption limit.

With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Willey: Does the Financial Secretary agree that these figures show a serious disparity between the standard of living in the North-East development area and the more prosperous regions of the country? Does he also accept that that disparity is steadily getting worse and forms a serious indictment of present development area policies?

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly do not accept the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The disparity has existed for many years. The Government's aim is to encourage development in the development areas where, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, special tax incentives are available.

Mr. Willey: With respect, the words I used were, "that disparity is steadily getting worse".

Mr. Bagier: How does the hon. Gentleman equate these figures with the oft-repeated statement by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government that high wage claims create unemployment when apparently unemployment is highest in the North-East where incomes are lowest?

Mr. Jenkin: There are a number of cases where inflationary wage claims and settlements——

Mr. Willey: Where?

Mr. Jenkin: I refer to the Chrysler Company, in particular. There are a number of cases where inflationary wage claims and settlements have led directly to the loss of workers in the industry. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for unemployment— [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—the Secretary of State for Employment has made clear on many occasions, it is not necessarily the people who get the inflationary wage claims who lose their jobs; it is their less fortunate colleagues in other industries.

Following are the details:
The figures of income for tax purposes used in arriving at the answers were derived from the results of the (as yet unpublished) Survey of Personal Incomes for 1969–70. These figures do not therefore include non—taxable income such as National Insurance Benefits and any income in kind or taxable incomes below the effective exemption limit of £330 a year. If it were possible to take the extra incomes into account and to exclude members of the population who have no incomes the average incomes

per head would be higher. The Survey for 1969–70 uses the place of residence of the taxpayer in the regional analysis. Earlier Surveys used the place of assessment to classify taxpayers by region. The 1969–70 figures are therefore not comparable with those for earlier years.
2 The population figures used relate to mid-1969.
3. The regions given are the Standard Regions of England and Wales as defined in Appendix 1 of the Abstract of Regional Statistics No. 7, 1971. The South-East Region includes the G.L.C. area. The Northern Region the counties of Cumberland and Durham as well as Northumberland, Westmorland and the North Riding of Yorkshire.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the distinction among income groups of the relative gains or losses from all the Government's financial measures since June. 1970.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is not possible to provide estimates of the kind for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that skilled workers have suffered a net loss from the Government's fiscal and welfare measures so far, while those with incomes of over £5,000 a year have made a net annual gain of over £1,250? In view of this massive feather-bedding of the rich, how can he possibly expect Government workers to accept a wage norm of 8 per cent.?

Mr. Jenkin: I do not accept the hon. Member's figures, which, as always, seem to be full of inaccuracies. But if the recent Fabian Society book is even approximately an accurate statement of what took place when the Labour Party was in power I should have thought that it would approach the question with a good deal more humility.

Rents (Increase)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the increased rents for council and private landlords' tenants under his Housing Finance Bill will not also bring about higher rating valuations.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I can assure the hon. Member that the rents to be determined under the Housing Finance Bill will not of themselves affect current rating valuations or those in the new lists to be deposited at the end of this year.

Mr. Allaun: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I now ask him to give an assurance that this will not raise rateable values when the next revaluation takes place in five years. Is it not clear that a rise in rents will mean a similar rise in rateable values?

Mr. Macmillan: As the House knows, valuation for rating purposes is calculated on open market rents. In so far as fair rents are open market rents, less the scarcity value, the rateable value would already have taken account of that. Admittedly it is a difficult thing for valuation officers to do. Therefore, the only change that is likely in the 1978 valuation is if moving to fair rents discloses evidence which shows that the previous valuation has not been on a strict open market basis.

Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is a bit out of date with his answer? Is he aware that experts in this sphere have already predicted that at the end of the quinquennial review there will be increases in rateable value because assessors will have no option but to take the rent expected in the open market for a private house against the rent expected for a council house? Indeed, does he agree that his policy will mean increased rates not so much for council tenants as for private tenants?

Mr. Macmillan: The valuation for rating purposes will continue in 1978, as now, to reflect the open market rents of the preceding years. If the evidence of those years indicates that open market rents are going up, the valuation will go up; but this will not in any sense be a direct consequence of the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)? Is it not a fact that rates will go up in direct proportion to the way that rents will go up under the Bill.

Mr. Macmillan: I will not give an answer as a statement of fact about anything which may happen in future. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite got into difficulties and got the country into difficulties by assuming that they could make that kind of forecast. In 1978 the

rateable value will be assessed, as now, on the open market rent obtainable for the housing concerned. In cases where the movement of fair rents shows that the comparison of one property with another has been altered there will be a consequential alteration in the rateable value.

Mr. James Hill: Would my hon. Friend not confirm that in 1978 there will still be generous rent and rate rebates for the council tenant, and that in the private sector there will be equally generous rate rebates?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is no reason, unless some Government reverse it, why the rate rebate scheme should not be equally or indeed more generous. The rent rebate scheme is being extended by the Housing Finance Bill to the private sector for the first time, and rent rebates will naturally continue.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Scottish Banknotes

Mr. David Steel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue directions to Government Departments to ensure that Scottish banknotes tendered to them enjoy the same status as their English equivalents.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Although Scottish banknotes are not legal tender in any part of the United Kingdom we are taking steps to inform Government Departments that they should be accepted.

Mr. Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last part of that answer will be warmly accepted? Will he assure us that there will be no incidents similar to those which have occurred in the Passport Office in recent weeks, which have been put right by the Foreign Secretary recently, and that all Government Departments will accept these notes, whether or not they have legal significance?

Mr. Jenkin: That is the import of my answer.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I want to be assured that when we reach Question No. 45—assuming that we do—I will not be told——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Later

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman please raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

Chemical Manufacturing (Fuel Duty)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake to review the provision of the Customs and Excise Acts whereby tax on fuel oil used in power stations for the manufacture of chemicals is paid in full if 50 per cent. of the energy is used for refinery purposes and remitted in full if less than 50 per cent. is so used.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: We are considering representations we have received on this matter but my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment further now.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the existing preponderance rule is inequitable and that the marginal change advocated by the Chemical Industries Association, supported by the British Plastics Federation, would be timely, in view of the present difficulties of the chemical industry, with investment not proceeding as planned and redundancies increasing in all major manufacturing centres, notably on Teesside?

Mr. Macmillan: The Question on the Order Paper has got the provisions the wrong way around. A power plant which is 50 per cent. or more used for petrochemical manufacture and oil refining is excused the duty on its fuel. A power plant otherwise used has to pay tax. I hope that that goes some way to meeting my hon. Friend's difficulties.

Prices and Incomes

Mr. John Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of recent events, he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards prices and incomes.

Mr. Barber: Yes Sir, the object of the policy is to decrease the rate of inflation, and that is being achieved.

Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that whatever it was that passed for a policy for prices and incomes since the date of the election has now collapsed miserably in ruins? Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the Government should have sought the co-operation of trade unions and employers eighteen months ago, instead of belatedly now? Is it not also true that the only lame ducks around these days are the policies which this Government are trying to follow?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. The facts do not support what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he and the House will consider the index of retail prices, for example, they will see that the actual percentage change over six months earlier has been as follows—April last year, 5·7; May, 5·7; June, 5·6; July, 5·4; August, 5·1; September, 4·7; October, 3·4; November, 3·1; December, 2·9, and January, 2·6. Although you would not notice it, Mr. Speaker, from the reaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am sure that they are just as delighted as the housewife.

Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that those figures show that the Government's policy in this respect is working and will continue to work? Does he not further agree that in those circumstances the Government have no intention whatever of introducing any form of statutory prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Barber: The answer to my hon Friend is "Yes", on both points.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not particularly concerned about the figures that he has quoted? Is not the important thing that, irrespective of the recent award, which was fully justified, all too often in the past the only people who have been getting the increases are those who can exercise the greatest power? Surely, in our economy the weaker unions and other people should be considerd, and not just those who can blackmail the community.

Mr. Barber: I am very pleased to know that we have the support of at least one


hon. Member opposite who is considering the plight of the weaker sections of the community.

Mr. Emery: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear to hon. Members opposite that the prices and incomes policy backed by legislative control was a complete failure, which had to be given up by the last Government? Would he urge them to back voluntary policies, which are the only ones that the T.U.C. wishes to see brought about, instead of currently 
backing every wage claim, which is bound to bring greater inflation?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has a very good point. One point which has emerged clearly from our interchanges on these matters is that the Opposition have abdicated their responsibility. When they were last in office they at least tried to keep down prices and the cost of living. As my hon. Friend has said, they introduced a comprehensive control of wages by statute, which is certainly something which this Government are not prepared to do.

Mr. Taverne: Will the Chancellor not seriously consider that his N-1 formula on which his whole policy is based has been shown to be unworkable because it cannot make any allowance for special cases like that of the miners' settlement?

Mr. Barber: Each case is considered on its merits, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to see a de-escalation of the increase in prices, it is essential that there should be a de-escalation in the level of wage settlements.

Depreciation Allowances (Hotels)

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend depreciation allowances to cover the fabric of hotel buildings and structures.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

Mr. Hannam: I appreciate that reply, but in view of the importance of the tourist industry, not only in view of foreign earnings but from the point of view of future employment, and in view of the ending, next year, of the grants and loans scheme, would not my hon. Friend agree that every effort should be

made to ensure the continuing provision of modern hotel facilities? Would not depreciation allowances be the best method of achieving this end?

Mr. Macmillan: I note my hon. Friend's point. It may reassure him to know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is seeing representatives of the tourist industry tomorrow.

Widows

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has now received from widows about their financial plight; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and organisations and also from widows personally. We have replied, as always, fully and with sympathy.

Mr. Ashley: Widows will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sympathy, but could he offer them a little more? Is he aware that many working widows go out to work in middle age, after having been bereaved, and that they should often be treated as special cases, because they have no expertise and experience of industry? In the light of those circumstances, will he not consider offering them higher tax relief on their earnings?

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that every Government will always have great sympathy with the difficulties experienced by widows, particularly those women to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred who go out to work after they have been bereaved. Indeed, the Government will have sympathy with all in reduced circumstances. But it would not be right for me now to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Cormack: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has just said, during the next fortnight would he, together with my right hon. Friend, pay particular regard to those women who are living on maintenance payments, which payments are taxed at present as unearned income?

Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend will know, when the new system of unified tax comes into force next year the first slice of investment income will be taxed at the same rate as earned income and, as


I pointed out in the Budget debates last year, will be of great value to that particular category of persons.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Eadie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a booklet of instructions to assist particularly the elderly in post-war credit claims.

Mr. Barber: There will be a widespread publicity campaign which will be repeated each month, to draw attention to the repayment scheme. In addition, tax offices are always willing to give further help if needed.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be grateful for any information that is provided in order to assist our constituents with their rights? Would he bear in mind that this information is beginning to be needed now, as at our surgeries we are continually receiving requests from constituents for information on this subject?

Mr. Barber: I considered very carefully the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a booklet but, on reflection, it did not seem the best way to help. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the first monthly Press publicity will take place this month, and it will concern the repayment of post-war credits to those people whose surnames begin with the letters A, B and C.

Mr. Farr: Would my right hon. Friend concentrate on the publicity side, because much consternation is being caused to some people who suddenly find that they are not entitled to a long expected postwar credit because of some long-forgotten income tax arrear or non-payment? Would my right hon. Friend look into that matter?

Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir. The Inland Revenue recognises that the publicity of this repayment scheme is very important indeed, and it has given a great deal of thought to it.

Mr. Atkinson: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets under way with this publicity scheme, will he ensure that the Morning Star has an adequate amount of the publicity, too?

Mr. Onslow: Give them your post-war credits.

Mr. Barber: I shall make some inquiries on that point.

Value-added Tax

Mr. Ewing: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many trade, professional and sports organisations have written to him expressing concern about the effects of value-added tax and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In response to the invitation in the Green Paper on V.A.T., nearly 700 organisations have put forward representations covering numerous aspects of the tax. They have been informed that their representations are being taken into account in planning the tax.

Mr. Ewing: But would the right hon. Gentleman accept that no proposal on the reform of our taxation system has been received with so much apprehension as the proposal to introduce value-added tax? Without trying to ascertain what the Budget Statement will contain a fortnight hence, may I express the hope—and would the right hon. Gentleman accept—that those who have expressed doubts and apprehensions expect their apprehensions to be reflected in the Budget Statement?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that we have had representations from about 60 sports organisations. We have received representations from the Football Association, the Football League, the Scottish Football League, and so on. We have noted what they have said, and the hon. Gentleman's point.

Scotland (Official Visit)

Mr. Sillars: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make an official visit to Scotland soon after his Budget Statement.

Mr. Barber: As yet, none, Sir.

Mr. Sillars: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be aware of the great concern in Scotland about the Budget and its effect on growth rate, and the effect of growth rate on unemployment. Would he confirm or deny that unless the United Kingdom achieves a growth rate of at least 6 per cent. per annum for the next few years there will be no


measurable impact on Scottish unemployment?

Mr. Barber: I should be delighted, as the hon. Gentleman so generously suggests, to find a suitable opportunity to visit Scotland, because it would give me a chance to expound the fact that the present Government have taken more action to expand demand and promote employment in all parts of the United Kingdom than have any previous Government.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the first Chancellor of the Exchequer since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary massively to reduce taxation, he will always be welcome in Scotland, and that he will be even more welcome if he can come to Scotland after the Budget as a Chancellor who has reversed the damage done by the massive increases in road taxation imposed by the Labour Party?

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what effect his massive measures have had upon unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. Barber: The simple fact is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that he and his predecessor, the two Labour Chancellors, year after year after year, deflated the economy, imposed restrictionist measures and increased taxation to an extent which was bound to have its effect on demand and employment. At least the present Government, since coming to office, have consistently taken steps to reverse that policy.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: rose——

Sir G. Nabarro: Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) must address the Chair.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Did I hear you call me, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to shout "Sit down".

Sir G. Nabarro: I was being interrupted after you called me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not backward in coming forward

in complaining of the conduct of other hon. Members. Question No. 18.

Hon. Members: Apologise!

Selective Employment Tax

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of revenue arising from total cancellation of the remainder of selective employment tax from 21st March, 1972, to 31st March, 1973, with the introduction of value-added tax on 1st April, 1973; and to help reduce unemployment and prevent further inflation following settlement of the miners' pay claim whether he will now make a statement on his proposals in this field.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The net yield of S.E.T. in the 12 months of 1972–73 is estimated at £250 million and the yield of the last contribution week in 1971–72 is estimated at £5 million. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current real value of the £ sterling as compared with June, 1970.

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I would refer the hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply to a similar question yesterday by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). —[Vol. 832, c. 233.]

Mr. Skinner: I am afraid that I have not had time to look it up. I have been in Committee on the Housing Finance Bill. I suppose that it would be fair to say that it has dropped again, below the level mentioned in the reply I saw last time. Is the Minister aware that this will promote even further wage claims, and that if the Housing Finance Bill, which will increase rents by 25 per cent. this year alone, is not scrapped, even further wage claims will have to be advanced in order to compensate for that?

Mr. Jenkin: What has certainly dropped is the rate of inflation. Figures


given by my hon. Friend yesterday show that the value of the pound fell, between June, 1970, and January, 1972, to 88p. In those 19 months, the first 10 months accounted for 8p and the last 9 months accounted for 4p.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that for a basketful of shopping which cost £5 in June, 1970, the housewife now has to pay £5·68? Is he further aware that the Government's economic policy is lying in ruins, that the Prime Minister's pledge to cut prices at a stroke is buried beneath those ruins, and that the housewife will never forgive the Prime Minister for deceiving her?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot do better to answer the hon. Member than to quote from the Daily Mail leading article today:
Mr. Heath has achieved a remarkable success in halving the rate of both pay and price increases.

Mr. Raison: Can my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary tell us what is the current real value of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Mr. Kaufman: In view of the fact the Minister said he could not do better than that answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received in February, requesting a lowering of the tax on liquefied petroleum gas: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The duty on this gas has not yet been brought into effect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor hopes to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Chief Secretary realise that the whole wrangle over L.P.G. is a symbol of something rather more important, namely, the general strategy of the Government as to whether they are prepared to help those things which are anti-pollutant and show a bias against those things which are pollutant?

Mr. Macmillan: I take the hon. Member's point, but if it is wished to achieve what he said, the fiscal system is not necessarily the best way of doing it.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told me in answer to a question that he would in no way wish to see any tax provisions put on L.P.G., because it is an anti-pollutant?

Mr. Macmillan: It is an anti-pollutant whether it is used in vehicles or industrially, and therefore the considerations which must and will be taken into account when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his statement are wide and very considerable.

Mr. Taverne: Does the Chief Secretary realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was totally unsatisfactory? Will he explain why he says that fiscal measures are not suitable measures for dealing with pollution?

Mr. Macmillan: I said that fiscal measures were not necessarily suitable for this purpose. The greatest possible use of the fuel would still leave a large number of conventional petrol and diesel engines which would not therefore be prevented by fiscal means from polluting the atmosphere.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to increase the level of manufacturing investment.

Mr. Barber: I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

Mr. Sheldon: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer seen the reports in the Financial Times that there will be further cuts in machine tool investment and that there will be yet further redundancies in the machine tool industry? What action will the Chancellor take to avert this, bearing in mind that one of the most serious criticisms that may be made of the Government is that they allowed investment in machine tools to dwindle and decline until the machine tool industry faced severe difficulty?

Mr. Barber: I note what the hon. Member says but, as I stated in my original answer, I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement, which will be a fortnight today.

Caravan Homes (Hire Purchase)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow as a deduction from gross income the charges on a hire-purchase contract to finance the purchase of a caravan home, in the same way that he allows a deduction of interest on a loan taken out for the same purpose.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Dixon: In practice, bank loans are available only to those who live in houses, and people who live in caravan homes can borrow money only on hire purchase. Therefore, as it now stands, there is one law for the rich and one for the poor.

Mr. Macmillan: It is open to those purchasing caravan homes to do so by means of a credit sale agreement as opposed to a hire-purchase agreement, and therefore to attract tax relief. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I cannot go further until my right hon. Friend's forthcoming Budget Statement.

Dr. Gilbert: Would it not be a step in the right direction if the Government were to consider implementing those provisions of the Crowther Report that would require the public to know the true rate of interest that they are being charged in all these transactions?

Mr. Macmillan: These matters are being considered by the Government, but they would not affect the issue of hire-purchase interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. COUNCIL

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council he has attended since he took office.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. It is normally the practice for Governments to be represented by their Foreign Ministers at ministerial meetings of the North Atlantic Council. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary expects to attend the next ministerial meeting of the Council in Bonn on 30th and 31st May.

Mr. Onslow: As my right hon. Friend is aware that recent criticism of the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. has caused a great deal of concern in this country, will he invite his right hon. Friend at that meeting to remind the alliance that public confidence in it will depend to a large extent upon the interest and expenditure which all member Governments are seen to be willing to devote to it?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is quite correct. The deficiencies in certain aspects of N.A.T.O. defence have been brought to the fore recently by General Walker, but these are deficiencies which the Eurogroup in N.A.T.O. has been trying to eradicate. The improvement to common defence which the European countries have made in the past years has been quite considerable.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the Prime Minister see to it that when the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary attends the meeting of N.A.T.O. to which he has referred he raises very forcibly with N.A.T.O. its vetoing of the contract which Ferranti has obtained from Poland? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make clear to N.A.T.O. that America is extending its trade rapidly with Communist countries, as are Germany and France? Will he make it clear that as long as they go on trading with Rhodesia, contrary to United Nations decisions, we shall do what we can to obtain export orders, wherever they may be obtained?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter with which the Government have been concerned because they realise its importance to Ferranti and to the employment situation in this country. Discussions are continuing, and I would not like to comment on them except to say that there is a generally agreed procedure for the supply of specific items of equipment, under COCOM, to the Soviet bloc and to China.

Mr. Sandys: In view of the great increase in Soviet military power and the consequent need for an increased defence effort on the Western side, will my right hon. Friend see that the attention of N.A.T.O. is drawn to a greater extent than hitherto to the necessity for standardisation and joint production of armaments? This is the only way by which we


can increase our military effectiveness without vast increases in taxation.

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the importance of my right hon. Friend's point. As he knows from his past experience, this is one of the matters which British Governments have constantly pressed upon the N.A.T.O. Powers, and we shall certainly continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER OF LUXEMBOURG (DISCUSSIONS)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg.

The Prime Minister: I had the pleasure of entertaining Monsieur Werner at 10 Downing Street on 22nd February, when I discussed with him a range of subjects of interest to our two countries as well as to the European Communities generally.

Dr. Gilbert: Did the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Werner the proposed new economic co-ordinating committee of the European Communities? If so, can he say whether he favours its being inside the present Commission structure, as one gathers the Dutch Government would rather have it, or outside, as the French would rather have it?

The Prime Minister: We had a general discussion about these matters, but obviously they are issues to be settled by discussion between the present members of the Community and in consultation with those countries which are about to join. I would not like to say anything further on the matter at this stage.

Mr. Dykes: In view of the importance of the European monetary proposals, can my right hon. Friend say how rapidly he sees these matters developing with our own contribution as a prospective member nation?

The Prime Minister: It is very difficult to predict the timetable at this stage. Members of the Community have been meeting on this question this morning, and may still be continuing their meeting. Progress was suspended early in 1971 after the first Werner Report, and today's meeting is the first opportunity

they have had of taking up these matters again.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL SMELTING CORPORATION (LEAD POLLUTION)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Departments of Employment and the Environment over action arising from lead pollution from the Imperial Smelting Corporation, Avonmouth; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Department of Employment is concerned, through the Factory Inspectorate, with working conditions inside the smelter. while the Department of the Environment. together with local authorities and river authorities, is concerned with the impact of these and other works on their external environment. The two Departments keep in close touch.

Mr. Pardoe: I realise the speed with which the Government change their policies, but is the Prime Minister aware that the Department of the Environment made a decision against an inquiry one day, that within 24 hours the Department of Employment set up the very inquiry, and that on 2nd March the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in answer to a Question that I asked, said that his Department was not responsible for the levels of toxic material in factories? If it is not responsible, who is?

The Prime Minister: There has been some misunderstanding about this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has dealt with the point in the House. The inquiry was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment because it dealt with the inside of the factory. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was asked questions about the matter, he was dealing with the environment outside the factory. The inquiry was set up to deal with the internal conditions and not the impact on people living outside the factory. These are two different things. But the co-ordination between the two Departments is very close.

Mr. McLaren: As the Member representing Avonmouth, may I ask my right


hon. Friend whether he is aware that local opinion is that both the Departments have acted promptly and efficiently? Is he aware that Sir Brian Windeyer's Committee is already at work, and that we in Bristol know a great deal more about what is going on in Avonmouth than do well-meaning strangers from North Cornwall?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to intervene in a West Country dispute, but it is true that the Factory Inspectorate has been trying for some time to find a solution to the problem. Now the works have been shut down for two months in an attempt to find a permanent solution to the problems inside the factory. My hon. Friend is right in saying that an inquiry on conditions inside the factory has been set up and is already at work.

Mr. Benn: If the Prime Minister re-reads his answer carefully he will see that there is a gap, because the possible threat to the external environment arises from conditions inside the factory. What has caused anxiety in Bristol and elsewhere is that local health authorities have no locus standi to go into a factory that they believe may be polluting their area. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this point again, because it is very serious?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to look at it again and ask my two right hon. Friends to go into the matter to see whether there is a gap. But the inquiries into the effects on the external environment, in which I understand all authorities concerned had the opportunity to participate, came to the conclusion that there was no discernible damage outside the factory to the people living nearby.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR-INTENSIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment concerning the development of labour-intensive industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The two Departments work closely together on all aspects of employment policy.

Mr. Eadie: But does the Prime Minister agree that there is concern in the country about jobs being lost because

of technological obsolescence, for example, and that the figure of one new job created for two jobs gone out of existence is often quoted? Does he therefore agree that there is a need for a detailed study of labour-intensive industries, and that any contraction of them without such a study would do a great disservice to the nation?

The Prime Minister: Most manpower-intensive industries carry out, and have carried out, studies to discover what their future manpower requirements are likely to be. We can think of major industries, such as the nationalised power industries, that have done that. I do not think it would be possible to do an overall and complete survey of all the manpower-intensive industries, but we had a discussion of the matter at Question Time recently, when it was raised in a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are as many jobs at risk at the British Steel Corporation's Irlam works as there are at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and that with only a fraction of the resources to be pumped into the Upper Clyde the Irlam Steel Works could be operated profitably, saving several thousand jobs in the Greater Manchester area? Will he take a personal interest in the matter?

The Prime Minister: The British Steel Corporation has already had a very large investment programme approved by this Government, and it stretches several years ahead. But it is for the Corporation to decide what form that modernisation should take and where it should be. Therefore I cannot deal with any particular instance. What is right is to ensure that the Corporation has a large investment programe both for modernisation and, if it so decides, for expansion.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In relation both to the study of fuel and power and energy policy announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the talks with industry about inflation and all the associated problems, will the Prime Minister commission studies from his advisers about the particular problem that has defeated all Governments in this country up to now—the problem that so many of the public industries,


including service industries like the Post Office, nursing and many others, are labour-intensive, which means that if those employed in them are to receive wages or salaries comparable with those in private industry there is a heavy burden on the industries' finances, which might have price effects right through the economy? Will the right hon. Gentleman commission a study to see whether there can be a new approach to the problem of how those in labour-intensive public industries can receive fair salaries and wages without affecting inflation generally?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is one aspect of the problem, which affects nationalised industries to a large extent. Questions of economic cost and manpower employed, and so on, will form part of the review of the power industries. These matters must be taken into account in the decisions reached by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (OFFICIAL VISIT)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister when he hopes to make an official visit to the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: It is the normal practice for Governments to be represented at the General Assembly of the United Nations by Foreign Ministers or Permanent Representatives, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary attended the 1970 and 1971 Sessions. I attended the Special Commemorative Session in October, 1970, and would be glad to visit the United Nations again on an appropriate occasion.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it accepted that the United Nations conference on the environment at Stockholm is in serious jeopardy over the issue of an East German presence, and that the Department of the Environment is preparing hard for the conference but that the Foreign Office is against it, for protocol reasons? Which ministerial horse, the Foreign Secretary, or Government, is the Prime Minister backing?

The Prime Minister: It is not necessary for me to take that decision, because the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong.

The Government are most strongly supporting the conference——

Mr. Dalyell: And the Foreign Office?

The Prime Minister: The Government as a whole are strongly supporting the conference. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the facts of the case he will hear from what I am about to say the real point at issue. The chief scientific adviser to the Government will be going, as well as Ministerial representation——

Mr. Dalyell: If it takes place.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is singularly ill-informed, because discussions are now going on about an arrangement which would allow East Germany to be present. East Germany was not included in the original United Nations decision on representation. That was not our responsibility——

Mr. Dalyell: Partly it was.

The Prime Minister: ; It was a decision of the United Nations Assembly. What we are doing is to work, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for means by which the problem can be solved.

Sir G. Longden: If my right hon. Friend should decide to go to the United Nations, which I hope he will, will he take with him specific proposals for increasing the effectiveness of that organisation?

The Prime Minister: From time to time all Governments have put forward proposals to make the United Nations more effective. We dealt with this at the special conference in 1970, particularly over the question of peace-keeping arrangements.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While welcoming what the Prime Minister says about the special arrangements in respect of East Germany, may I ask him to confirm that the arrangements proposed are on the lines of the suggestion made by West Germany for United Nations representation generally, namely that both West and East Germany should be there without calling in question German unity? Will he say whether it is intended in these circumstances that West Germany will be going as well?

The Prime Minister: Under the terms of the General Assembly resolution, the


Federal Republic of Germany is entitled to be present. There is no problem about West Germany's being present because the General Assembly decided that it could be. East Germany was excluded from the resolution and since then proposals have been put forward which would enable East Germany to be there. We do not yet know whether these are acceptable to the Powers concerned.

Sir R. Cary: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prime task of the United Nations is fostering world peace? In those circumstances would he also agree that a great debt is owed to President Nixon for taking the first step to build a new bridge of friendship and co-operation between China and the United States?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the visit of President Nixon to Peking. He informed us before the announcement was made and naturally I discussed it with him in Bermuda. I am very glad that the visit has taken place.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does go to the United Nations it would be helpful to the world community if he could clarify the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the question of sanctions in Rhodesia. Is he further aware that the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs very frankly replied to me that no representations had been made to the Americans before they agreed about the chrome sanctions in defiance of the Charter, and none has been made afterwards? Can we know, in the event of a "No" from Lord Pearce, whether the Government hope that other nations will continue to honour their obligations—or have the Government lost interest in this?

The Prime Minister: The American position is a matter resting between the United States and the United Nations, as it would be with any other country concerned with the observance of sanctions. As for this country, we had better await the report of the Pearce Commission.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Merlyn Rees: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a `statement about the bomb explosions which have occurred in Northern Ireland during the last few days.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): There were 11 explosions during the weekend in Northern Ireland, and three yesterday. The most serious incident was at the Abercorn Restaurant in the centre of Belfast on Saturday afternoon when it was crowded with shoppers. Although the bomb was not a large one, the circumstances in which it exploded resulted in two young women being killed and another 136 civilians injured, of whom 30 were detained in hospital, some in a serious condition. Most of the other explosions during the weekend were also in Belfast, but two were in Dungannon and one was at Cookstown.
Yesterday there were three more explosions in Belfast, a co-operative store was damaged, and during the afternoon a 40–60 lb. bomb exploded in a van parked outside a cinema in the centre of the town. Fifty-six people were treated for shock and cuts, eight cars were damaged, and extensive damage was caused to property. The van in which the charge had been left had been stolen in the Falls Road area earlier in the afternoon. In Londonderry a 40–50 lb. charge of explosive was placed in an hotel in Northland Road by three youths, two of whom were armed. No casualties resulted, but extensive damage to done to the premises.
Those outrages are remarkable for the utter callousness shown by those responsible.
I know the House will wish to join with me in extending our deepest sympathy to those who have been bereaved and to those who have been so terribly injured and mutilated.
The security forces will take all possible steps to apprehend those responsible.

Mr. Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while we accept, given the situation in Northern Ireland, that we cannot expect a statement on each


occasion of an incident, two dead and nearly 200 injured is exceptional and warrants a Government view? Is he further aware that we would like to associate ourselves with his expression of regret to relatives? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard these recent tragedies—which are supported only by those who are mentally ill, who are attacked by Catholic and Protestant alike—as part of a new and co-ordinated plan? Has he any information concerning the responsibility for them, and will he assure the House that the shock and reaction to these terrible events will not prevent the Government from taking a political initiative, not as a gesture to murderers but as a well-thought-out policy designed to get the support of the 99 per cent. decent people in Ireland, North and South?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that these crimes are the work of psychopaths. I do not think there is a concerted plan, but it is a new pattern of unco-ordinated bombing by psychopathic killers. As to responsibility, I cannot add to what I have already said. The security forces do all they possibly can to pin the responsibility on those who are guilty. On the subject of a political initiative, I confirm that the Government will make a statement on this at any time when we think it will contribute to progress in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While associating myself with the expressions of sympathy for those involved in this most inhuman of all outrages so far, and also with the relatives of members of the security forces who have been killed recently—not excluding the relatives of Mr. Marcus McCausland, whose family had in its own peculiar way played as much a part in trying to heal the wounds of violence as any I know—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the word "initiative" means something different to different people? Will he make it absolutely clear that, whatever it may mean to him, it does not in any language in any part of the United Kingdom mean surrender to terrorism and brute force?

Mr. Maudling: Of course, without any question whatever there can be no surrender to brute force or terrorism. There is a great need, emphasised by

these outrages, to do all we can to unite the overwhelming majority of people who are against terrorism.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one wants to make any concession to terrorism or to these outrages that have recently taken place in Belfast? Is he further aware that what many of us are concerned about is that week by week we are told there is to be a Government initiative—we have had it from quite official sources—but nothing ever happens? Does he not agree that this delay might add to the uncertainty and problems existing in Northern Ireland? Will he and the Prime Minister consider saying something fairly urgently about Northern Ireland and about what the Government propose to do?

Mr. Maudling: It is the desire of the Government and of the whole House to make some progress in this tragic situation. We will make a statement at any time when in our judgment it will help to make progress.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most important piece of progress which could be made now lies in controlling the materials which these murderers use? Could he say whether any progress is being made in the control of gelignite and detonators, and whether a political and effectual initiative is coming from Eire on this subject?

Mr. Maudling: A lot of work is being done on the control of gelignite, but I will not go into the details; if I did, it might help those trying to do the harm.

Mr. Foley: May I associate myself with the condemnations of violence, and may I ask the Home Secretary whether he realises that in the absence of political initiatives by the Government their room for manoeuvre is being diminished day by day, week by week? When are we likely to have proposals from the Government—political initiatives and not just condemnations of violence and reports of incidents?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think I can add to what I have already said. The Government will make a statement when we judge it to be of advantage to Northern Ireland to do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I, too, would like to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy for the bereaved and those so seriously mutilated. Is the Home Secretary aware of the absolute revulsion and horror that went through the whole community on Saturday when this terrible disaster occurred in the Abercorn Restaurant, Belfast? Is he aware that even a surgeon in the Royal Victoria Hospital was so revolted that he took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement? Is he further aware that there are now people without eyes, arms, legs? Does lie realise that this incident has called forth condemnation from every section of the community that is thinking rightly on this subject? Does he not feel that there is great urgency for the Government to make known the proposals that they have in mind, for all sections of the community are under a shadow, and until the Government declare their policy great uncertainty exists which is begetting increasing fear in the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maudling: I certainly am aware of the almost universal condemnation of these outrages throughout all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, and indeed, in the South, and in this country as well. On the second half of the question, I can only say again that the timing of any Government statement on the political situation in Northern Ireland should be determined not by individual incidents but by the best judgment we can make of the timing that best suits the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Home Secretary aware that the whole House is appalled by these outrages, which can achieve nothing except an increasing bitterness in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that, while we must accept that this is a question of timing, we cannot be seen to be making concessions to violence? Will he accept that over the years timing has not been the most conspicuous success in our judgment in this country of Irish affairs? Is he aware that it would be the hope of the whole House that support could be given without any question of controversy or differences on the package, but that some of us believe that that package is now long overdue?

Mr. Maudling: What the right hon. Gentleman says confirms the importance of getting the timing as well as the content right. I emphasise that the lesson of these outrages is the enormous importance of not giving way to violence in any form whatever but of uniting the entire community against the men of violence.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend be a little guarded in his use of the term "psychopath" to describe men who know what they are doing and are deliberately mass-murdering innocent people? Secondly, with the help of Mr. Lynch in Eire, will he try to arrive at an arrangement to ensure that where I.R.A. terrorists who have perpetrated these hideous crimes can be identified their property should be seized and maximum compensation paid to those who have suffered?

Mr. Maudling: In reply to the first point of my hon. Friend, no one who does a thing like this can be other than a psychopath. It is a form of bestial behaviour which can best be described as being something which no ordinary human being could ever dream of doing. On the second point, where there is evidence of members of the I.R.A. being participants in these crimes, of course our job obviously is to apply for extradition so that they can be tried.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Home Secretary aware that I am happy to be associated with the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in welcome contrast to those of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark)? In bringing forward this long-awaited statement, will he impress on his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the need not to be deflected by the hawkishness which emanated from the Home Affairs Group meeting last night as reported on the front page of the Daily Mail by Walter Terry?

Mr. Maudling: I did not detect any difference between the supplementary questions of my hon. Friends. Both took the point that there can be no concession to violence but there must be continued attempts to reach agreement.

DEVONPORT HOSPITAL (PATIENTS' DEATHS)

Dame Joan Vickers: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement concerning the death of five patients in Devonport Hospital following the discovery of contaminated fluid.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I have to report with great regret to the House the deaths of five patients at the Devonport Hospital. The whole House will feel the deepest sympathy, as I do, towards those who have been so tragically bereaved.
Last Saturday the doctors at the hospital confirmed their suspicion that these deaths might have a common link in that in each case an intravenous dextrose solution had been administered. These solutions had all been from the same sub-batch from the manufacturer, Evans Medical Ltd., of Speke.
The Senior Administrative Medical Officer of the South-Western Regional Hospital Board was informed on Saturday afternoon, and took immediate action to inform all hospitals in the region that bottles from that sub-batch were suspect and should not be used. He also informed the manufacturer, who at that stage believed that only the South-West Region would be involved, but, as a precaution, notified all his distributors that any stocks of the offending sub-batch should not be issued from their depots. Officers of my Department were also informed on Saturday, and they satisfied themselves that all hospitals in the South-West had been alerted.
Further information on Monday morning revealed that bottles from the same sub-batch could have been distributed to other regions. My Department immediately arranged for those regions to be alerted by telephone, and for nationwide publicity to ensure to the greatest possible extent that all bottles from the suspect sub-batch should be withdrawn from use.
Bottles of the dextrose solution from Devonport are being urgently examined bacteriologically by both the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Government Chemist. The results of these examinations will determine the next step

to take to avoid any recurrence of this tragedy.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I ask him to offer our sympathy to those who are bereaved. Is he aware that since 1863 this hospital has performed excellent service to the community, and will he confirm that no blame attaches to the admirable and devoted staff? Have there been any similar incidents since 1966, when Evans Medical Limited had to recall 150,000 bottles of a similar liquid? What further action does my right hon Friend intend to take on this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: I welcome the tribute paid by my hon. Friend to the hospital and the staff. Since the incident in 1966 to which my hon. Friend refers, the firm concerned has been involved in no other incidents until now. A considerable tightening of precautions was made by the firm after the 1966 episode.

Dr. David Owen: I extend my sympathy to the relatives of the people who have so tragically died. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a little more detail about the safety precautions that have been instituted in the firm since 1966? Will he assure the House that his Department has taken steps to ensure that the most stringent safety precautions are in force? Further, will he confirm or deny that the contaminated batch was delivered in May of last year? If it was, will a committee of inquiry be established to try to trace other deaths over the last few months which could be attributed to an infusion from the contaminated batch?

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that the likely cause of the 1966 contamination was faulty sealing of the bottle, and a more rigid specification was laid down for the rubber stopper and the application of the metal sealing ring. Improved manufacture and quality control procedures were introduced. Since then the Medicines Commission has come into being and is setting up an inspectorate which will watch quality control procedures. It is true that the batch was issued in April last year. I should like to leave the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question until I have considered the evidence available to me and decided what next should be done.

Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend say what quality control he or his inspectorate has to prevent this sort of incident recurring? The quality control has obviously failed here and has led to fatalities. This is the second incident that has occurred within seven years involving the same firm. It must be apparent that action should be taken by his Department to ensure that this cannot happen again.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is right to focus attention on this point. My Department cannot possibly monitor every process of every product, but it exercises vigorous control over the sensible monitoring which a client should use. The new factor is the Medicines Commission, which is only at the beginning of its career. It also is setting up the nucleus of an inspectorate which will concern itself particularly with quality control.

Mrs. Castle: May I associate myself with the hon. Members who have expressed sympathy with the relatives of those who have died? In view of the importance of this issue, may I ask three questions?
First, does not this incident prove that a reputable brand name on a package is not a sufficient guarantee of the reliability of the product? Therefore, ought there not to be some form of routine testing of these products for which the right hon. Gentleman's Department should take responsibility? Can the right hon. Gentleman make quite clear what inspection takes place at present and what routine testing he intends to institute?
Secondly, at present when supplies come into a hospital there may not be a record of the batch number or the sub-hatch number on the invoice. This would make tracing difficult in an emergency situation such as this. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions that all invoices should include the batch numbers or sub-batch numbers and that adequate records should be maintained of the product which a patient receives?
Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how far he has got in tracing the result of the batch? Will he put an embargo on all similar products of this company being used for this purpose until such time as the rest of the hatch has been traced?

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry that I cannot give full answers to all the right hon. Lady's questions at this moment. She will be aware that the firm is naturally, in its own as well as the public interest, intensely jealous of its repute and good practice. Nevertheless, I have to be concerned with the quality control, and what I now have to study is the degree to which the Medicines Commission on the one hand and my Department on the other need to strengthen procedures. On that I cannot give a fuller answer until I have studied the lessons produced by this tragic episode.
I will certainly study the question about invoices. I think that they do carry a package number. I understand that 155 of the 600-odd bottles in this sub-batch have been recovered in the South-West Region up to now. I should like to consider the question of any embargo in the light of the answers I get from the Public Health Laboratory Service.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: May I associate myself with the expression of sympathy for those who have suffered bereavement in this tragedy? Is my right hon. Friend in a position to inform the House whether this was an error in the manufacture of the substance, or an error in the packaging, or whether some extraneous material was involved? Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to guess where the fault lies in this unfortunate disaster, as quite obviously faulty fluid was being used on patients?

Sir K. Joseph: No, I cannot give my right hon. Friend the answer to that question. I shall not be able to do so until I have the report of the Public Health Laboratory Service.

Mr. Pardoe: While associating myself with the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) both in sympathy with those affected and her remarks about the good work of the hospital, which serves part of my constituency, may I ask whether it is not normal practice for hospital laboratories to test incoming batches of this sort of substance? If that is not normal practice, should it not be?

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that it would not be practicable for hospitals to test samples from every product batch


coming in, but the extent to which hospital procedures need to be reviewed will be one of the matters which I shall consider.

Dr. Stuttaford: How long after the dextrose was administered did the first patient die? Can my right hon. Friend say what the organism was? If he cannot tell me, why not, because he has now had 48 hours in which to consider the matter?

Sir K. Joseph: I think the answer to the second question is reasonable, that I must wait for the examination by the Public Health Laboratory Service. I cannot answer the first question except to tell my hon. Friend that of the five deaths the first two were on 29th February and the last was on 2nd March; they were spread over those three days.

Mr. Heffer: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, after the fullest inquiries have been carried out, a report will be made available to hon. Members? Secondly, will he make absolutely clear that despite this very tragic event, Evans Medical Ltd. has a very good reputation? We in Liverpool feel very upset that the product should have emanated from a Liverpool factory. Will he make clear that this company has a very good reputation for these products?

Sir K. Joseph: I very much welcome the hon. Member's tributes to the firm concerned. In answer to the first part of his question, if my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will be kind enough on a suitable date to put down a Question, I will give a written reply informing the House of the result of my inquiries.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the importance of his statement about the Medicines

Commission monitoring products, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a statement of all the practical steps that will follow? Will he issue instructions that before dextrose is purchased in future it will be seen that the containers shall be of glass, as they used to be, because of bacteriological infection, whereas now many are made of plastic and other materials and infection is not easily spotted by the doctor when administering the drip?

Sir K. Joseph: I must not be taken as commenting in any way on the performance of the Medicines Commission. It is a new factor, and it is only just getting into action. I note the hon. Member's point about containers.

SCOTTISH BANKNOTES

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would have been easier to pursue the matter which I want to raise if my Question had been answered, but, trusting that it will be accepted and an answer will be given soon, I wish to raise this point. I take it from the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that there will be a British £1 note, and I take it that there is——

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but the hon. Member has great experience of this House and knows quite well that he cannot in any way get that into a point of order. I call Mr. Janner.

Mr. Greville Janner: rose——

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that it is not a point of order.

RESTRICTION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (SWORDSTICKS)

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Acts 1959 and 1961 to swordsticks.
There has been a flood of these hideous weapons coming into the Midlands of late, including Birmingham, Manchester and Leicester, and action is needed now. I have been informed today by a reporter on the "Nationwide" programme that an enormous consignment consisting of thousands of swordsticks has left the London Docks for a firm known as Great Eastern Crafts, and a Mr. Lewis, of "Nationwide", has told me that he was offered 500 at £1·50 a time with no questions asked. Action needs to be taken now before tragic results follow from the distribution of these dangerous weapons.
These are very cheap objects. I have one which was obtained by a reporter on the Leicester Mercury for £2·95, and I am told that they are available cheaply everywhere, including Petticoat Lane. If such a weapon were in the hands of a villain or a man who became drunk there is no knowing how it might be used. If anyone thinks that these long thin blades are the amusing shades of Fu Manchu, they should see the one which I was forbidden to bring into the Chamber this afternoon. It is outside in the possession of a doorkeeper. It is a horrible object. I am told that both sticks and swords are banned from this Chamber, and of late for very good reason. That being so, this weapon is available outside and I invite hon. Members to look at it.
There is present in the House today a constituent of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons), a Mr. Ben Robinson, who was run through the stomach with one of these blades at a dance. If anybody thinks that this is a joke, I shall be very pleased to introduce him to Mr. Robinson outside because that man has been disabled for life as a result of this incident.
In terms of the past there have not been many of these modern swordsticks about. As for the future, there is a grave danger, a danger which has grown much greater in the past week following the large consignment which has recently been imported.
The matter can be dealt with quite simply and swiftly. I seek to have banned the manufacture of swordsticks in this country and the import, sale or possession for sale of modern sword-sticks. I understand that certain hon. Members who are now present are somewhat concerned about their collection from the Indian Mutiny and are somewhat afraid they might have to give up their accumulation of these weapons. They need have no fear from the provisions of this Bill, which are aimed entirely at modern weapons only.
There are two Acts on the Statute book which are designed to deal with the menace of flick knives. In regard to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959, it would be churlish of me, for ancestral reasons not to pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Leicester, North-West who introduced that legislation. Unfortunately, it took him five years to get that legislation through the House, by which time many deaths had occurred.
I hope that on this occasion it will be possible, by simple amendment of legislation, to prevent the import of these dangerous weapons before they become a craze. I see no reason why we should always wait for criminals to get in first. It would be a record if just for once we were able to prevent a crime which we know to be on its way. This can be done by the addition of a very few words to existing legislation. It will take very little time of the House, and indeed I shall today take no more time of the House but beg leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner. Mr. Tom Bradley. Mr. Simeons, Mr. John Peel, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Adley, Mr. Miscampbell, and Mr. Buchan.

RESTRICTION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (SWORDSTICKS)

Bill to provide for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Acts 1959 and 1961 to swordsticks, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 14th April, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st March.]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION

Amendment No. 49 proposed [1st March], in page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning 'the'.—(Mr. Ronald King Murray.)

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I do not quite know how one can raise this because I understood that my point of order was a matter to be raised with Mr. Speaker, but since I have not had such an opportunity I wish to raise this matter with you. There are some nine Standing Committees now meeting with 150 members——

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that I am not competent in this Chair to answer the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I must get on with the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: Sir Robert, may I raise a point of order which you are competent to deal with? In a few moments you will

call certain Amendments. A number of hon. Members have told me they wish to be present in this Committee in order to take part in the debate on those Amendments. However, they have been precluded from so doing and have been told they are unable to leave other parts of the building in which the Standing Committees are being held.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that that is nothing to do with me today sitting, as I am, as Chairman of Ways and Means. The Amendment has been proposed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. I feel sure, Sir Robert, you will agree that the matter I wish to raise with you is a matter of real importance to the Committee as a whole. There are agricultural provisions in two Bills——

The Chairman: Order. Any point of order with which I can deal now must be related to this Amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: I fully understand the situation of the Committee, Sir Robert, in that an Amendment has been moved which is now before the House. There are some important points to be raised about the selection, and I presume that the proper time at which to raise those matters will be before the next Amendment is called, after we have dealt with this Amendment.

The Chairman: As soon as we come to the appropriate place in the Bill I will listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. It may be that you will decide that my point of order relates to the first Amendment and to others. I hope that my point will not be prejudged. I was saying that there are agricultural provisions in two Bills which are now before the House; namely, the European Communities Bill and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We are still deeply concerned about possible contradictions between the two Bills which are now being debated in different parts of the building.

The Chairman: I do not want to be difficult with the hon. Gentleman. I want to see that the rules are properly carried out, as I am sure does the hon.


Gentleman. He must relate what he has to say to this Amendment and then I shall be glad to answer him.

Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I have no intention of causing any difficulty. I am very concerned that we should determine a very important matter of procedure before we enter into any further discussion of Amendments. This morning the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill gave a very important ruling which refers both to the European Communities Bill and to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is now upstairs. The hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) was warmly praised by my hon. Friends——

The Chairman: It cannot be any concern of mine whether the hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell), the Chairman of that Committee, was praised or damned or anything else. It is nothing to do with me here. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point which relates to this Amendment.

Mr. Morris: What was declared in that Chairman's ruling this morning was the following:
At the last Sitting hon. Members asked me for further clarification of certain matters arising out of the ruling by my predecessor in the Chair on 3rd February. On that occasion he ruled that Amendments relating the provisions of this Bill to the European Communities legislation were out of order as anticipating the terms of legislation which is still before the House.
The Chairman went on:
At the last Sitting the matter was raised, quite properly, in a somewhat different form and I ruled that it would be possible in a debate on the Clause stand part to probe the Minister's attitude to possible conflicts under the original ruling, on the grounds that tion and existing Community law. I confirmed that I would be prepared to allow this. Hon. Members also raised the question of possible Amendments. I can only consider Amendments which are actually before me and I would not, therefore, wish to give a judgment on hypothetical cases. Amendments which made specific reference to Regulations under existing treaties would be out of order under the original ruling, on the grounds that the Minister's attitude to possible conflicts the state of the law as it stands now, otherwise any decision on the admissibility of Amendments, whether or not they happen to have the effect of bringing the provisions of this Bill"——

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid I cannot listen to the hon. Gentleman on this. This is not connected with the Amendment, as I see it. I have waited quite a long time for him to come to the point, and he does not seem to be coming to a point which concerns me. We must continue the debate. Sir Derek Walker-Smith.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: We had some discussion on this Amendment in the small hours of last Friday morning——

Mr. Morris: Sir Robert, on a further point of order.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am addressing myself to the Amendment, I hope in order. I am not on a point of order. I am on the Amendment which I understood was the business of the Committee.

Mr. Morris: On a further point of order——

Hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a fresh point of order for me to rule upon, I am prepared to listen to him. I have given him several opportunities to get to the point in the point of order which he raised on this Amendment. He has not done so. I had no option but to call the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).

Mr. Morris: Sir Robert, I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am asking for a definite ruling that nothing decided upstairs shall in any way affect or diminish our rights to table Amendments to the Bill.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman had said that in the first place I should have been able to answer him. Of course it will not. We are not bound by what is done upstairs.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Sir Robert, I preface my brief contribution to the discussion of this Amendment with an apology to you and to the Committee, in that at 5 o'clock I have to go upstairs to the Committee of Privileges where, rather improbably as right hon. and hon. Members may think, I find myself temporarily in the Chair. These are the sort of things that seem to happen to us in


this House. I see that there are no fewer than nine public Committees sitting this afternoon. So one is lucky, perhaps, to have any hon. Members in the Committee at all to listen to what one has to say.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order——

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I have to go upstairs at 5 o'clock, and I know the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Lewis: I promise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my point will not take three-quarters of an hour. Will he go a little further? The Leader of the House has accepted that this is a very unfair and unsatisfactory state of affairs, because he said that on Wednesdays he would see that Committees did not sit. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman have a word with the Leader of the House and see what the difference is between Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday? If it is right that Committees should not sit on Wednesday, why should they sit on a Tuesday or a Thursday?

4.15 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am always willing to do my best. I think that, cast in the rôle of universal benefactor, I should be almost more improbably cast than in my temporary rôle as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges; but it is a very unfair and difficult world, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and these things do happen.
When this Amendment was moved in the early hours of Thursday morning it was classified by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) as, in effect, a probing Amendment. The language which he used was that this Amendment was trying to unravel the complexities of the Clause and reveal its purpose. I took that to be the elegant description of the Edinburgh Bar for what we more succinctly and less elegantly normally call a probing Amendment. As one who had the good fortune to be born in Edinburgh, I am pleased to see the hon. and learned Gentleman gracing the Opposition Front Bench. If it is a probing Amendment, I shall certainly approach it as such.
Clause 1(3), the omission of which is the definitive part of this Amendment, is in two parts. The first, which I will call for convenience Part A, was described by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General as "evidential" or "machinery" in its content. I would like to ask him what would be the effect, in his view, of the omission of this Clause, assuming that this Amendment were persevered with and carried.
The Committee must be concerned with the definition of the treaties in this Clause and with their limitation, because of their effect on Clause 2(1), which has been described as the heart of the matter, where the obligations under all the treaties, whatever they may be, are self-executing, contrary to British practice and precedent. I should like to ask what treaties are considered to be evidenced under Part A of subsection (3). We can see by looking at the Bill that they will include the Treaty of Accession and all the treaties particularised in Schedule 1. All that is clear. What is less clear is the reference in Clause 1(2) to "any other treaties".
What is important about Part A of the subsection is whether any existing treaties not particularised either in the Clause or in Schedule 1 come under the non-protective part of the subsection. If one looks at the drafting of the Bill, one sees that the words used in subsection (3) are:
… a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom 
and that, on the face of it, would not restrict it to future treaties, which will have the protection of the second part of subsection (3).
Are there any other existing treaties lurking in the background? Are there any treaties not particularised in Clause 1 or Schedule 1 which could be evidenced merely by an Order in Council under Part A of subsection (3), without the necessity of the express approval of Parliament or a draft Resolution under what I call Part B? If so, what are those treaties of which we may not yet know?
If "treaties" bore only the normal connotation of a treaty, it might seem to the Committee improbable that there could be anything lurking of which we as yet have no knowledge. But, of course, the anxiety arises in the context of the


very wide meaning given to "treaties" by Clause 1(4), which provides that a treaty does not only mean a treaty in the popular, normal sense of that term, but includes any international agreement and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement. I hope that the Committee will be assured that there are no existing treaties in the wide sense of this definition, no international agreements or the like which are not particularised in the Bill but are to be or may be evidenced under the non-protective part of Clause 1(3).
I hope that we shall also be told what, in the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend, would be the effect of the omission of subsection (3) on the power given by Clause 2(1) for regulations under specified treaties to be self-executing. If the treaties exist but cannot be evidenced by Order in Council, what effect does that have on the provisions of Clause 2(1) for the treatment of regulations as self-executing thereunder?
I pass to the second part of subsection (3). This part was described by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General as providing express protection for treaties entered into after 22nd January, 1972—again, treaties having the wide significance given to them by Clause 1(4). Hon. Members will welcome any degree of protection afforded by the requirement that there must be an affirmative Resolution approving the draft. But I think we should be told what sort of treaties are envisaged as probable which will come under the second part of Clause 1(3). We have not been told yet. I make no complaint about that, because my hon. and learned Friend was addressing the Committee at about seven o'clock in the morning on the previous occasion.
The words in subsection (3) are
a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January 1972
with certain exceptions. But if we compare that wording with the wording in subsection (2) we see that that says
any other treaty … as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties".
Why is there that difference in the phraseology of the two subsections? Is it intended in this second part of subsection (3) to cover treaties other than treaties ancillary to any of the treaties entered into by the Community? If it is, what are those extra treaties which it is pro-

posed to cover under that difference of language?
On the other hand, if it is not, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will explain why it has been thought necessary to use this difference of language. He and my hon. and learned Friend will recall the canon of construction that one must give some meaning to every difference of language expressed in a Statute in different parts. Applying that canon of construction, may we be told what is the difference and what is the effect of this presumably deliberate differentiation of language in these two succeeding subsections?
Then, the Committee will wish to know what sort of ancillary treaties the United Kingdom is expected to enter into under the subsection. In the early hours of Thursday morning, though circumscribed by the limitations of time, nevertheless my hon. and learned Friend was able to make some reference to this matter. He referred to Articles 113 and 228 of the Treaty of Rome. As the Committee is aware, the references in those two Articles are references to Community treaties concluded by the Council of the Community on behalf of the Community as a whole. There is no suggestion in either of those Articles of ancillary treaties to be made by member States. No doubt that does not preclude the possibility of such ancillary treaties, but it means that as they are not expressly referred to we get no guidance from those Articles on what will be the scope and nature of these ancillary treaties about which we are now asked to legislate. I should be grateful for some information about them.
This consideration arises, in any event: if the ancillary treaties are to be bound and limited by every syllable of the Community treaties concluded by the Council to which they are to be ancillary, if they are merely to echo and reflect the Community treaties, they are not the subject of independent legislation by this Parliament. The question then arises as to what is the point of a safeguarding Resolution by Parliament in such circumstances, in any event.
The material question would appear to be what would be the position under Clause 1 (3), assuming that it remained on the Statute Book, if Parliament in its wisdom and discretion withheld the


express approval which is requisite for evidencing an ancillary treaty. That ancillary treaty will have been made by prerogative action, and it may be considered by the Community as a whole as indispensable for the discharge of our Community obligations. In that case, what is the juridical position if Parliament rejects the Resolution, withholds its consent to the evidencing of an Order in Council for the ancillary treaty, and the Council or Commission of the Community says that, if it is not given, we are in breach of our treaty obligations? I think we should have some further information about that.

Mr. Michael English: The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly is on a very substantial point. Will he also take account of the fact that in this peculiar system of law into which we are entering, although individuals can be proceeded against, and although this State can be proceeded against whether it acts through Parliament or fails to act in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned, even if the Court of the Community takes a decision that we are in breach of the law there is no procedure for enforcing it against the State?

4.30 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is so. The hon. Gentleman raised this interesting point in one of our earlier debates or perhaps on a point of order the other day—I forget which—but I remember listening with interest when he made this proposition. Of course, the treaty contains provisions in its articles for the resolution by the Court of Justice of deviations of the member States from the treaty. The hon. Member is also right that it does not specify any machinery whereby those can be enforced. That is perhaps one of the gaps of the treaty.
On the point which I am presently considering—presumably my right hon. and learned Friend will comment on this—under those articles of the treaty, first, the action of Parliament in withholding its consent to the evidencing by Order in Council of an ancillary treaty would be considered by the Commission and thereafter the reference to the Court is promulgated in the treaty. I agree that after that stage a doubt arises.
But the point remains pertinent whether this Committee, under the second half of subsection (3), will be engaged in a fruitful and useful exercise, or whether it is to be engaged in a parliamentary charade on the basis that if it refuses consent some action will be taken—be it what it may and be its enforcement what it may—to override the will of Parliament here. That is the point to which we want my right hon. and learned Friend to address himself.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is correct—we are certainly following it with the greatest possible interest—it would not merely be a question of a parliamentary charade and having the debate on the affirmative Resolution which, if carried, would upset the arrangements made, but that, at least under part B, as he has described it, this part is outside the scone of the Bill under the definition of its scope which we were previously given.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is not out of the scope of the Bill, if one looks at the wide terms of the Long Title which I ventured to suggest on an earlier occasion was the right criterion. But here I think I must, like Agag, tread delicately, or we may arouse memories of far off unhappy events and battles long ago.
I conclude by saying that I hope my right hon. and learned Friend, with all his experience both of the law and of Parliament, will address himself to these matters of vital importance and give us the answers to what I think are relevant questions.
I certainly do not want, any more than any other hon. Member, to see the excision of any protective provisions. I do not want to see the excision of any provisions which will protect the rights of Parliment, because that is our main concern on the Bill. However, I, and I think the rest of the Committee, will want to know the reality of the protection afforded and the degree to which this country will be at risk to unknown and hitherto unspecified obligations by way of treaties defined in Clause 1(4).
I repeat my apology, Sir Robert, that, unfortunately, I shall not be able to hear the whole of this debate. But I give the assurance that tomorrow I shall read


every word and syllable contributed to the debate in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT with all that conscientious assiduity which I have sought to bring to the study of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, but I hope with a great deal more pleasure.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I think I could hardly do anything at the outset other than respectfully to adopt the points so cogently made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I am sorry that the Committee will not have his presence throughout the debate but I am sure hon. Members will understand why.
I should also like to adopt the very pertinent questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put to his own Front Bench. I accept that these are absolutely vital questions to the understanding of subsections (2) and (3), with which we are particularly concerned in discussing the Amendment. I hope to add one or two other questions to those which have already been posed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The discussion on this Amendment is bound to be wide ranging, although not exactly free ranging in view of what has happened in past debates. This is necessary because the first three Clauses of Part 1 of the Bill are closely interconnected parts of a single operation intended to connect the United Kingdom with the existing European Community.
To see the full impact of the Amendments and to understand the subsections which are affected by them it is necessary to set the scene at this stage in a rather wider way than one might have to do perhaps later in the Committee's deliberations. Clause 1, for example, which appears to be the interpretation Clause, must be set as the first step in a three-step process for getting us into Europe. Indeed, even if I had not been very enthusiastic and had doubts about spreading the discussion in this way so that we could see the significance of the Amendments in the subsections themselves and the part they play in this intricate process, those doubts were resolved by the Solicitor-General in the early hours of 2nd March. The Committee will see the passage at columns 699–700 where he dealt with the question of what was

covered by subsections (2) and (3). He indicated that at least seven separate items were covered. Indeed, if one looks at it with perhaps the sort of care we can exercise at 20 minutes to five in the afternoon, as distinct from seven o'clock in the morning, one will see that there are 11 items to be discussed here.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I outline what those items are. First, the pre-Accession Treaties are named—if I might use that terminology—in the first six paragraphs of Part I of Schedule 1. Then, there is what one might call the omnibus paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 1 dealing with other treaties not named. There are six named treaties and then a bundle of innominate treaties of some kind. We shall have something to say about that in due course, but that is another bundle. One most not balk at the fact that this portmanteau may carry at least 11 items, but we do not know how many will go into the portmanteau.
Then there is the United Kingdom's Treaty of Accession, mentioned in Clause 2(a). There are the associated decisions of 22nd January mentioned in Clause 2(b). That is the decision relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the Coal and Steel Community. Then there are the two other portmanteau provisions,
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities ",
which is one group. The second group is
any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of the Community Treaties.
If my arithmetic is correct, there are at least 11 items, and not only would the portmanteau item, paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1, contain a lot of subunits or items, but so also do the wider classes which I have just mentioned: namely, any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities and any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom. I do not want to overstate the problem. However, those last two categories obviously look to the future rather than to the past.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the drafting is very wide. On the face of it, there is nothing to limit the application of these classes so that it applies merely to the future; it could apply to the present as well as


to the past. Therefore, it raises interesting points which can be discussed later. There is no obvious limit of time regarding these two categories. They are in a portmanteau which can be filled not only on future journeys, but now, and there might be past items tucked away in its recesses.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On the last point, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that unless there is an overlap between paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1 and his last item but one, it is clear that his last item but one must in practice refer to the future, since the other such treaties which refer to the past are already covered by paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1?

Mr. Murray: I accept that that is probably correct. There is something to be said on those lines by way of understanding the intention of the draftsman. The right hon. Gentleman has made a relevant and important point. All I say in reply is that the drafting of the Clause is so general that this does not appear from it. I think that that is sufficient for my present purpose.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is there not one sub-division of the penultimate item in my hon. and learned Friend's portmanteau, namely,
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities with … any of the member States
and another sub-division,
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities … without any of the member States"?
This is an important constitutional point because it involves the element of supranationalities.

Mr. Murray: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I shall have to explore that matter later.
Even if we delve into each of this large number of items and consider what is contained in them and what is meant in each of the packages, to use the terminology which has been adopted, we still have to unravel their interconnections. It is a complicated and cumbersome task simply to understand what it is all about. However, when we have unravelled all the intricacies of the interconnections of

subsections (2) and (3), taking them with the Amendments and with others connected with these two subsections, there is still a considerable process to be undergone to understand the significance of the Clause as a whole.
For example, we have not had any Amendments on subsection (1). Yet the whole question whether this is a closed or an outward-looking society—for example, taking into account the genuine needs of the under-developed world—will rightly arise in the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East has raised the question of the meaning of subsection (4). When we have exhausted the Amendments dealing with that, we shall not have fully assessed the significance of this important subsection, not merely to Clause 1, but to the position of Clause 1 as a whole and its operation in the process of getting us into Europe.
There is a certain paradox in the fact that in these Amendments we are dealing with matters of great importance bearing not merely on the constitutional law of the United Kingdom but on difficult matters of international law and of the British constitution. We are and must deal with all these matters because of the way that the Bill has been framed. We must deal with them under a Clause the side note to which is "Short title and interpretation".
[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair.]
4.45 p.m.
I confess that I was surprised when, in the early hours of 2nd March, the Solicitor-General said he had nothing to declare. If that was so, why is he giving this interpretation in the declaratory Clause? In considering these Amendments and in probing and trying to discover the significance of the Clause, we shall have to find out whether a very strenuous parliamentary search needs to be undertaken.
The Solicitor-General, in the early hours of 2nd March, claimed that in the second part of subsection (3), to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East referred, he was providing some kind of safeguard. He said:
The second part of subsection (3) is a special provision ensuring that any treaty


entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972, ancillary to the Community treaties shall not be so specified and therefore, shall not be regarded as a treaty having that effect until it has been the subject of an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. There is that express protection built into the Clause in relation to treaties entered into by the United Kingdom ancillary to Community treaties after the date of the signature on 22nd January, 1972.
I wish again to be clear about that. That protection"—
the hon. and learned Gentleman was invited to "Get on with it" and he stated:
The protection of an affirmative Order in Council applies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 701.]
It is important to point out that if we are dealing purely with a declaratory Clause, far from there being nothing to declare there is a vital constitutional protection to declare. I find it surprising that the Long Title, which states,
To make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom",
makes no mention of such an important protection, if protection it be.
I have not long been a Member of the House of Commons, but those of us who have been involved with private Members' Bills know the tremendous difficulty one gets into if one misses out of the Long Title an item of significance. Surely it will not be said that the supposed protection which the Solicitor-General said that he was giving us is not so insignificant that it does not merit some mention in the Long Title. However, that appears to be so. Indeed, the Opposition will have to press very strongly the question of what is and what is not contained in the Long Title. I shall have more to say about that later.
Before turning to some of the detail which I wish to present to the Committee in supplement of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East said in his opening remarks, it might be of assistance if I went back to the beginning and took seriously the proposition that this is intended to be an interpretation Clause to clarify matters.
I start with the definitions on page 1. We have there the definition of "the Communities", which is tolerably clear. We then go to "the Treaties", or "the Community Treaties". This is where

our difficulties begin. The definition of "the Community Treaties" is unusual. Although it starts in a comparatively clear way, it becomes obvious in the second line, where we see the phrase
subject to subsection (3) below",
which is what we seek to delete, that the definition, apparently clear and transparent, immediately becomes elastic and opaque. I do not think that anybody, not even the most enthusiastic proMarketeer, could claim that subsection (3) was crystal clear. That is ignoring the other complications in subsection (2) which also fall to be dealt with, particularly lines 5 to 8 on page 2 of the Bill.
The first part of the definition of "the Community Treaties" gives us a core of certainty, because there are six existing Community treaties which are scheduled in Part I of Schedule 1. Therefore, we know what we are starting with. Then there is the portmanteau provision which I have mentioned: paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1. Although that is general and it is a portmanteau which can expand, one is still dealing with a paragraph which is comparatively clear.
Perhaps I may take up the point mentioned by my hon. Friend a few moments ago about how to fill the portmanteau. I think this was taken up also by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his intervention. The question of how to fill this portmanteau is very important. For instance one would have thought, in looking at Part I of the First Schedule, that this particular portmanteau was probably intended to be filled by treaties entered into before 22nd January by any of the Communities, with the qualifications there stated but which for one reason or another were not thought to be important enough to be mentioned.
Alternatively and this is perhaps a more likely way of filling the portmanteau—it may be that the provisions in paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1 are intended to cover, for example, informal agreements of various kinds which were entered into before 22nd January, 1972, but which are subsequently deemed, by the Court of Justice for instance, to have been part of the original treaty although they were not taken to be part of it at the time. That is a somewhat sophisticated legal concept but the court might


well deem that a treaty entered into before 22nd January, 1972, and not at that time deemed to be a treaty was a treaty after all.

Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Member again but he was in a sense following on from the earlier point which he permitted me to make. I wonder whether he has looked at the appendix to Command Paper 4862, Part I, which is the Blue Book containing the treaty. If he has, he will have found set out there, as I understand it, the maximum potential contents of this portmanteau in paragraph 7 of Part I of the first Schedule. His attention will have been attracted, no doubt, to the fact that English texts of those contents of the portmanteau are available for only part of one part of the total list.

Mr. Murray: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I think the point has been noted on this side of the Committee.
I was indicating that when one is dealing with these items and trying to discover what they are meant to be, the first factor obscuring the initial apparent clarity of the definition is the mention of "subsection (3) below". The second factor is the one we have just been discussing—the complication introduced by referring to Part I of Schedule 1. We look back there and we get the portmanteau in paragraph 7 which we have been dealing with. Not only is it tolerably clear that that particular portmanteau could be filled, additional items put in, by the European Court, because the drafting is so wide in that paragraph, as in this subsection, but equally it is conceivable that there could be agreement ex post facto that, for example, an informal exchange of letters before 22nd January, 1972, might by general agreement be raised to the status of a treaty without anything further being done. These are some of the complications that we have to deal with.
The third factor which obscures the initial clarity of the definition with which we are concerned arises from the points on page 2, lines 5 to 8. These add to the definition of Community treaties
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities

and any other treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of those treaties. This addition to the definition of "Community Treaties" is, as I have pointed out, completely open-ended and would appear to extend the scope of the definition to any future treaty entered into by the Communities or any future treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as an ancillary to the treaties.
It is crucial to note that in dealing with treaties entered into by the Communities we have to take account, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out, of the words
with or without any of the member States".
That suggests one of the categories that is to be put into this particular portmanteau.
Reference has been made by the Solicitor-General to Articles 113 and 238 of the Treaty of Rome. It is instructive to look at these two articles to see what can be put into this package. Article 238 provides that:
The Community may conclude with a third country, with a union of States or with an international organisation, agreements creating an association",
and
These agreements shall be concluded by the Council by unanimous decision".
This raises at least two very interesting points. First, whereas on the fact of it these are treaties which are international agreements—that is certainly what subsection (4) draws to the attention—there are certain conditions. But when one looks at Article 238 it becomes clear for the first time, perhaps—and perhaps hon. Members will need to have looked at the Treaty of Rome to discover this, because it is not in the Explanatory Memorandum or in the Bill, but in the Treaty of Rome, of which fortunately we have a translation, whether official or not——

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Authentic.

Mr. Murray: I am obliged for that information. We had pressed very strongly for this.

Mr. Deakins: Could my hon. and learned Friend say what is the difference between "official" and "authentic"?

Mr. Murray: I think that question would have to be directed to the benches opposite. Whether my hon. Friend would get an answer is another matter.
When one looks at Article 238 one discovers that apart from ordinary international treaties—of course these are contemplated because any agreement the Community might conclude with a third country would have an international element since it would be an agreement between the Community and a nation, so that that might be described as an international agreement—a union of States is the next category, and that is more interesting. It could be some body analogous to the Community. For example, the Warsaw Pact is a union of States and groups of South American or African countries are unions of States for the purpose of this section.
The third item is "or with an international organisation". Of course, there one is to some extent parting company with the ordinary concept of an international treaty because the Community is a curious entity. We will come back to that in a moment. It is not a nation, not exactly a union of nations, but a sui generis legal entity; and it can enter into agreements with international organisations. Straight away, then, we have a sort of agreement that previously has hardly been regarded as a treaty, or has not been regarded as a treaty at all—an agreement between a strange new supranational type of organisation and other international organisations, neither of which in the old terminology would have been regarded as States at all. So this is an important item that is going to come into the package.
It is also noticeable that the agreements are concluded by the Council by unanimous decision and after the Assembly has been consulted. It is the Council here, not even the Community as a collective body but some organ which operates for the Community, which seems to be taking the initiative and concluding the agreement. So we are in a field of international relations which is very different from the ordinary field of international treaties as people would ordinarily understand them. Once again, there is no guidance; nothing at alt in the Long Title or the Explanatory Memorandum to show that we are undergoing a great new legal exploration in this Bill,

going quite beyond the legal concepts normally operating in the law of this country.
The Solicitor-General referred to Article 113 of the Treaty of Rome, but the significant point is in Article 114. Article 113, like Article 111, provides for the Commission to negotiate to make various agreements connected with commercial policy. So we have another unusual situation in international affairs, and certainly something quite unique as far as Britain is concerned. We have a state of affairs in which the Commission, an independent administrative body, is to negotiate. This point has been made often in our debates. The Commission is in some sense a body barely understandable to anyone. It negotiates international agreements of the kind that will be brought into the portmanteau under lines 5 to 8 of page 2.
5.0 p.m.
Article 114 shows how these are to be concluded. The agreements referred to in Articles 111 and 113 are to be concluded by the Council on behalf of the Community. Once again, an organ, the Commission, is negotiating, and the Council of Ministers in concluding, agreements on behalf of the Community. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me for having mentioned the Treaty of Rome. I am glad, Miss Harvie Anderson, that you did not rule me out of order, although that was a possibility that I envisaged.
One begins to get from lines 5 to 8 a glimmering of understanding of what we are dealing with. It is essential to understand this when one has to follow the purpose of subsection (3). Clearly, that is presented by the Government as some sort of safeguard in relation to what has been done in subsection (2). One has to see the point of subsection (2) before one can deal with the point of the Amendment and assess its strength.
These lines contain the words:
any other Treaty entered into by any of the Communities".
We can see that these words include treaties or commercial agreements negotiated by the Commission and concluded by the Council, and that they will be legal not only internationally but internally, under Clause 2(1).
These arrangements, which are to be raised to the status of treaties, may be entered into, of course, as with other


States, but, curiously, there is no reference to "third States". One would have imagined that if we were dealing with international treaties there would be such a reference, as there is in Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome. One might also have expected that if this Community was outward-looking and sought to enlarge itself and to get new members throughout the world there would be some reference to other States which at some time might wish to accede to the Community. So there is a failure to refer to any outside States.
Also, lines 5 to 8 fairly obviously cover agreements reached between the Community and other States in Europe. There is a big field to be explored here, and this Amendment is probably not the appropriate one on which to explore it. But perhaps I should point out now that many of the countries of Eastern Europe—the Soviet Union and other countries of the Eastern bloc—do not recognise the legal existence of the Communities at all.
Accordingly, where an agreement is entered into by the Council with one of the Eastern bloc countries, there will be a need, if the Treaty is to be an ordinary international treaty, for it to be somehow raised to the necessary legal status to give it recognition by the Eastern countries concerned. This may be one of the purposes of the otherwise strange words
with or without any of the member States".
If, for example, a commercial agreement concluded between the Council and the Soviet Union is to be binding, associated with the Council would have to be the individual members of the Community. If they were not associated with the Council, the agreement would not be internationally binding.
Another meaning which this passage is presumably intended to have is that if there is an agreement between the Council, one of the organs of the Community, and some third party which recognises its legal reality—a South American State, for example—such an agreement might well not be strictly an international treaty within the meaning of international law. In that case, of course, something would have to be done to raise it to the necessary status. Perhaps subsection (4) is intended to carry out this operation, among others.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: This is a very interesting point, but it ignores the practical argument that the Community has been in existence for some time, and that none of its existing members appears to have these profound difficulties in supporting or implementing any treaties which the Community has concluded with such other States, organisations or communities.

Mr. Murray: All that I would claim to be doing at the moment is trying to understand the intention of these provisions. With respect, it is not pertinent to ask whether or not there have been any difficulties in other countries which are now in the Community. The difficulty which we in this country have is to understand these so-called legal nuts and bolts which we are being required to operate. There is no suggestion that any other country has to operate such a passage as appears in lines 5 to 8. I think that that meets the hon. Member's point.
I have said that obscurities in this passage make it difficult to understand the apparently clear definition of the Community treaties with which we start. I should therefore like to consider the quality and nature of the passage in subsection (2). I will then come to subsection (3), which is the operative part. Unamended, subsection (2) appears to be the first of two steps incorporating into our domestic law—by reference: no more—the whole directly enforceable law of the Community. That is the extent to which we are sacrificing our sovereignty.
From that point of view, it is important to note that if effect were given to the Amendment that I moved in the early hours of 2nd March, and if subsection (3) does not contain a constitutional protection but is just declaratory, the removal or the presence of that provision would not make one whit of difference. If we pass subsection (2) and Clause 2(1) unamended, we shall have sold the pass and imported directly—lock, stock and barrel, not nuts and bolts—the supremacy over our domestic law of the whole of the directly enforceable part of Community law—permanently, so far as one can tell, because there is no provision under the Treaty of Rome for bringing these arrangements to a conclusion.
If I am right about that—and it is quite clear that members of the Committee on the whole do not quarrel with the fact that that is right, whether they are in favour of going in or against going in—one has to try to understand and unravel the significance and meaning of subsection (3). If it is true that this Clause is a short title and interpretation Clause, then one would expect that all we were given in subsection (3) was something in the nature of interpretation.
The Solicitor-General said quite clearly when the Committee last met that the purpose of the first part—what I think the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East called Part A of subsection (3); that is, the procedure by Order in Council—was to evidence what treaties were to be regarded as belonging to the core of aggregate of Community Treaties. If it is intended to publish—evidencing is simply publishing in a way that is satisfactory to the courts of law of this country—or if it is merely evidential, one can understand its position here in an interpretation and declaratory clause. It would be justified.
It is important to note—and I am not sure that this has been pointed out yet in the Committee—that there is not a single element of parliamentary safeguard in that branch of subsection (3). What is provided is:
If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded.
That is pretty final. That is a declaration of publication of something which one cannot get behind or beyond.
It is true that under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, Section 1—assuming that that Act continues unamended, and the Committee has to consider whether all these ordinary Acts on which parliamentary safeguards rely will continue unamended after we enter the Community—Orders in Council under Part A of subsection (3) will be published as Statutory Instruments. That is a relief. That is all that will happen. Parliament will have no control. There will be no control whatever as to what is to be included in the package.
If one may take an absurd example, the wording of Part A of subsection (3) is so

wide. I have quoted it and so I will not quote it again, but it simply says that any treaty can be regarded as one of the Community treaties. As far as one can tell, there is nothing to stop the Treaty of Vienna from being included in that, even though it would normally be included in a history book. Why not put it in? If Her Majesty, by Order of Council, says that that is one of the Community treaties, let us include it. Our courts will give effect to it as best they can. I think they will have a task, but they will presumably give effect to that sort of thing.
May I take a little more time with the second leg, Part B, of subsection (3), because I do not suppose that anybody would consider that in Part A we shall have these historically interesting but ancient treaties.

Mr. Deakin: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves Part A of subsection (3), he has mentioned that it is widely drawn, and he has referred to the Treaty of Vienna. I do not think the Government are likely to resurrect old treaties. Surely here the danger is that any treaty in future—not in the past—could be specified as a Community treaty under an Order in Council, whether or not it falls within the definition of a Community treaty in the rest of Clause 1, and this House would have no option but to accept the Order in Council. There is no safeguard in Part A of subsection (3) as to what is intended to be done by a future Government of this country when it comes to specifying any particular treaty as a Community treaty. For example, there might be a very unpopular treaty entered into by a future Government of this country which would normally have to go through the whole panoply of parliamentary approval but if it were specified—wrongly, in many people's opinion—as a Community treaty it could go through under an Order in Council and Parliament would be able to say nothing about it at all.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Murray: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am grateful to him for that intervention. Indeed, he has tempted me to give yet another example of how Part A is so wide and so general that the whole of our parliamentary institutions are in peril if it goes through unamended.
I give an illustration. Let me make it clear to the Committee that I am going to give a politically absurd example. I want to draw attention to the width of the interpretation. If in future one had a situation where an enthusiastic proMarketeer was the Prime Minister of this country and was determined to advance the Community's interests so much so that he forgot all about the interests of the United Kingdom, he might find himself by an accident of politics with a Parliament which started favourably disposed to him but became increasingly antagonised and finally ended up thoroughly opposed to him.
This is a fictitious story that I am putting forward. If this state of affairs existed, and if the Prime Minister concerned became more and more involved in Brussels and Brussels became the centre around which his interests revolved and he forgot about Westminster, we might even get to the state of affairs which we had at the time of Cromwell when Cromwell found that his efforts to administer the United Kingdom were increasingly obstructed by Parliament. Cromwell came to the view that he could not carry on with Parliament. It had to be Cromwell or Parliament, and we know it was Parliament which suffered. He did not recall Parliament. He abolished Parliament for all practical purposes and governed, without it.
What could happen in Brussels? The European Cromwell of the future, walking the corridors of power along with other members of the Community, forgetting about Westminster and the domestic quarrels and troubles of this country because his eyes were set on a wider horizon far beyond the Thames, could then find the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster a nuisance, interfering and obstructing the Greater Europe which he is seeking to build. He then has a meeting with other members of the Community and the suggestion arises that they should have a little treaty, an international agreement, under subsection (4) which is raised into a treaty, because that is what subsection (4) is there to do. They have a little agreement that the interests of the Community would be better served if there were not a British Parliament interfering. They have an

international agreement that the United Kingdom Parliament would cease to exist.
That is an extreme case, and I want the Government to consider what the consequences are. If there is an answer, I shall be glad to hear it; if there are safeguards, let us have them. It might be that this Bill is not so bad after all. Let us have them in due course. I would say.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): As soon as the hon. and learned Member has finished his fanciful recitation, perhaps I can answer the question.

Mr. Murray: I have no intention of giving way at this point. I shall give way in a moment.
I suggest that we have a situation in which the interests of greater Europe have taken command of the Prime Minister of this country, and a treaty has been agreed that the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be abolished. I say it is an extreme case. In that case, all that has to be done in terms of subsection (3) to bring this about is for there to be an Order in Council declaring that this informal agreement which has been reached in Brussels is to be raised to the status of a treaty. If it is a treaty under subsection (3), then it is directly enforceable in terms of Clause 1 and it becomes the law of this country. It is not a situation which I would happily contemplate. If the Solicitor-General is to give us the safeguards now within the four corners of the Bill, I look forward to that with anticipation. But if it is not within the four corners of the Bill I shall be worried.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member, who normally addresses the Committee on points of this kind with care and restraint. It is attractive to see him in his Scots web-spinning, story-telling mood. But I must point out to him at once that his story is without foundation within the four corners of the Bill. The story that he was postulating was one in which his hypothetical disillusioned Prime Minister went off and entered into a treaty with the other States of the Community. That would be a treaty to which the United Kingdom would be a party as a separate State. It would not be a treaty entered into by the Communities within the four corners of the


existing Rome Treaty and those linked with it.
As soon as the treaty is one to which the United Kingdom would in itself be a party, as it would plainly have to be if it were to be embarking on anything outside the scope of the existing Community treaties, it is immediately covered by the second part of subsection (3), because the first part says:
If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties"—
and so on. The second part says:
a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January 1972 … shall not be so regarded unless it is so specified, nor be so specified unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved.
So the kind of treaty which the hon. and learned Member has in mind—namely, any future treaty to which the United Kingdom would be a party—may not be specified under the first part of subsection (3) unless it has been the subject of an affirmative Resolution under the second part. That is the significance of the words "nor be so specified".
I do not want to destroy the entire fabric of the hon. and learned Member's fanciful structure. A treaty entered into by the Communities, within the scope of the Communities' treaty-making power in the articles to which I referred last Thursday morning, is of a different kind. The protection I have outlined exists unassailably in respect of any future treaty to which the United Kingdom is or would have to be a party. The hon. and learned Member's example falls to the ground within the four corners of subsection (3), reading them together.

Mr. Murray: I hope that members of the Committee will avidly read HANSARD to see what protection has been spelled out by the Solicitor-General. But it is clear that he has made so many assumptions here that one cannot be satisfied to let this matter rest. However, I must let it rest and pass to other matters.
Before I do so, I point out, however, that one of the difficulties with which we are faced in Committee is to give content to lines 5 to 8. Despite what the Solicitor-General has said, the organs of the Community can enter into treaties with or without any of the member States: so

why should the United Kingdom be brought in when treaties can be entered into with or without the member States? It seemed that the suggestion which he has prayed in aid does not do. Perhaps we can look at HANSARD and examine the matter at leisure, because it is difficult to dismiss observations such as that without careful examination. I do not pretend to the Committee that I am taking other than an extravagant, extreme case, but one has to go to the extreme to test the Bill. Therefore, it is a matter to which we shall have to return.
I want to consider the so-called safeguard which the Solicitor-General founded upon with some glee in the early hours of 2nd March; that is, the second leg of subsection (3):
a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January.
We have a little interpolation here:
other than a pre-accession treaty to which the United Kingdom accedes on terms settled on or before that date.
I think it is tolerably clear—but I am not certain—that the interpolation would have the effect that pre-accession agreements which have not yet been made as treaties, agreed but not yet signed as treaties, such arrangements having been agreed before 22nd January, 1972, would be dealt with by Part A procedure; that is, merely by publication as Orders in Council, without parliamentary control. I think that that would make sense and is what is intended, probably, in this particular part of Part B of subsection (3). If that is right, the important words for us to examine are the other words, taking out the parenthesis:
a treaty"—
which must mean any treaty—
entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January, 1972 … shall not be so regarded"—
that is, shall not be regarded as one of the Community treaties—
unless it is so specified, nor be so specified unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
Again taking seriously the suggestion that this is merely an interpretation Clause, merely declaratory, the obvious meaning to give to those words which constitute Part B of subsection (3) would be that this is a more formal method of publication, but no more, of what is to


go into the portmanteau in lines 5 to 8, in so far as we are dealing with treaties ancillary to the Community treaties entered into by the United Kingdom.
If that is right, there is no safeguard there whatever. A certain meaning can be given to this on that basis, because it is fairly obvious that after 22nd January, 1972, the fact that the United Kingdom has entered into the Community will not preclude it from negotiating, transacting, executing and ratifying international treaties with all kinds of other nations outside Europe and outside the Community. For example, there is no particular reason why the United Kingdom, at some future date, should not transact a treaty of assistance on, perhaps, defence with Bangladesh. If that were to happen, it would certainly be of assistance to people of this country to know whether such a treaty was intended to have any connection with the Community. Concerning defence, there would not even be a presumption that such a treaty with Bangladesh had anything to do with the Community. But as for general assistance, that is another matter, and it may concern the Community. The sort of overseas assistance that we give to countries which are former members of the Commonwealth is a matter which may affect the commercial or economic policies of the Community. It would be of great assistance to us to have a formal procedure whereby Parliament could, with a minimal, short debate, decide whether Parliament wished that a treaty which the Executive were proposing to transact with a former Commonwealth country or a Commonwealth country should be regarded by the people of this country as part of the Community agreement, apart from what the Community thinks about it.
That would give complete sense to the subsection. It would be a formula of the way in which Britain could decide which kind of way it wished the Executive to operate a treaty to which it had agreed. I have my suspicions that that is what it is meant to do.
On the other hand, we have been assured by the Solicitor-General that it is some kind of safeguard. I ask myself what kind of safeguard it is. I must put this point very strongly to the Government. Is it the kind of safeguard which is really taking away the parliamentary

power that we at present have? Is that the sort of safeguard it is? Is it the case that if one omits the passage from line 5 to line 20—perhaps I should point out that a combination of Amendment No. 49, which we are discussing, with Amendment No. 99, together with the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Amendment No. 81, in page 2, line 5, leave out from 'into' to 'as' in line 7, would achieve this purpose—if those Amendments were effected by the Committee, the effect would be to remove the sting of these lines of the Bill?
The effect would appear to be—I press the Government on this point—that we would accede to the Community but would reserve entirely the rights of this House to approve, by parliamentary legislation, a treaty which the Executive entered into and which had internal effects, or possible internal effects, in Britain. In other words, it would retain in this House the right to ratify an international treaty, and that is a right which, as I see it, is being taken away by implication by this so-called interpretation Clause. If that is so, far from being given safeguards we are losing sovereignty and we are losing it under the guise of mere interpretation and declaration. Therefore, the true motivation for the provisions of the subsection is publication.
In introducing the subsection the Government are not seeking essentially a safeguard of any kind. They are seeking to take the minimal decision of whether a treaty should be published in the non-parliamentary way, set out in the first leg of subsection (3) or whether it should be done in the more formal way of the second leg of the subsection. The latter will still allow Parliament to exercise minimal sovereignty by deciding whether a treaty is to be described as being associated with the Community or whether it is to be regarded as having been transacted by the United Kingdom in exercise of some of its vestigial authority and vestigial right to transact treaties with third countries which are not connected with the Community in any way. These are points we have to probe very strongly.
5.30 p.m.
That is simply preamble, because we have to turn now to the more substantial significance of the Amendment. I hope


my introduction has not been too short to set the scene correctly. It is absolutely crucial that we should seek to assess the significance of subsections (2) and (3) in regard to what I believe to be the primary fraud of the Bill—the fact that it is introducing a foreign law which will have supremacy over the domestic law of this country. It is also doing it without mention of the fact in the Long Title and without any significant mention of the fact in the Explanatory Memorandum. In order to make this point I wish to quote, I hope very briefly, from two recent works which I think can help to elucidate for the Committee the significance of the step that is being considered in the Bill. The nature of the Community, the kind of Community institution into which we are entering, and the Community's corpus of legal principles is crucial because, to quote the Long Title again, the Bill is supposed to be making
provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom ".
We therefore have to consider what is the legal context into which the domestic law of this country will be fitted and what legal import will be placed over our legal system.
Let me quote first from a useful article in The Modern Law Review of September, 1971, by Gerhard Bebr, legal adviser to the Commission of the European Community. We can probably accept what he says about the nature of Community law as worthy of considerable respect. In dealing with the long-term objectives of the Community in shaping Community law as it now is, he says:
The long term … objective of the EEC Treaty is a gradual development and establishment of a common market envisaged as an economic union which would ultimately integrate the national markets of the member States. This gigantic task is to be attained … by a gradual establishment of a free movement of goods, persons, services and capital across the national boundaries of the member States. To assure a free movement of goods, customs duties and quantitative restrictions and measures having this equivalent effect are to be abolished and a common customs tariff and a common commercial policy towards third States established. A mere elimination of these trade barriers could not ensure this freedom of movement unless it was accompanied by free competition in inter-State trade and by harmonising relevant legislation of the member States which may hamper it. A common agriculture and transport policy complete these basic principles.

He goes on to say:
The realisation of these aims alone, conceived as factors of integration, could hardly release effects powerful enough as to bring about an economic union.
He continues:
The Treaty requires, therefore, among its fundamental principles, a co-ordination of economic policy of the member States.
He then turns to Community powers and he says:
A mere traditional co-operation among the member States could have hardly achieved this wide range of aims which are instrumental in establishing and developing a customs union and leading ultimately to an economic union. Independent Community powers, however limited, have, therefore, become indispensable. Within the limits set by the Treaty, the Community has its own, specific powers which reach out into the traditional competence of the State.
I pause to point out that powers can only be given by the law and that if the independent institutions of the Community are to have specific powers reaching out into the traditional competence of the State it can be done only by changing the law of the member States in a mode which can lead to that result.
The learned author from whom I have quoted reaches the conclusion several pages later in his article that
The objectives, the powers and the institutions of the Community suggest already that there is hardly any basis for comparing the E.E.C. Treaty with a traditional international treaty. Community law is, in a sense, an autonomous legal order to which not only member States but individuals as well are subject.
That touches on some of the points made by my hon. Friends in their interventions.
Mr. Bebr continues:
A long term process of integration, as outlined by the Treaty, would be impossible if not guided and fostered by a continually developing Community law, by a progressive Community legal integration. Thus even in legal fields the Treaty displays its own, inherent dynamism. This brief introduction may make it clear that to classify the E.E.C. Treaty as any other international treaty would do violence to its true legal nature and rob the Community of its very foundation.
He goes on to say:
The gradual development of the European Communities prompts municipal courts of the member States to apply Community law more and more frequently.
The domestic courts of the member countries find themselves more and more


applying the law of the Community rather than their own law.
The article, which I think is of very great assistance, goes on to deal with some of the solutions.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: The avid discourse of the hon. and learned Member is such that there is not a quorum present.

The First Deputy Chairman: No count.

Mr. Murray: If the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) listens more carefully he will find it is far from avid.
Mr. Bebr goes on to say:
Apart from article 189, the EEC Treaty contains no explicit and formal clause which would assure the supremacy of Community law over the municipal law of the member States.
This of course means domestic law of the member States.
The Court has, however, been fully aware of the vital need for such a supremacy, lest the effective operation of the Community otherwise be endangered.
The author goes on to give details of how the Court of Justice of the Community is ruling more and more, with greater and greater courage and confidence, that Community law dominates over the domestic law of the various States. It has done so tactfully but, I should have thought, quite firmly.

Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. and learned Gentleman has read some interesting quotations from that article, as if they state something novel, as if it has only just come to his attention that there is such a thing as Community law. But paragraph 4 of Cmnd. 3301, issued by the previous Government, clearly recognised the legal implications of joining the Community. They were part of the things we should have to accept. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Government knew it then, and the country knew it. Why does he make it appear that it is something he has newly discovered?

Mr. Murray: It is crucial for us to understand what Community law means for the member States. Perhaps one or two people have realised the implications for this country's legal system, and no doubt many hon. Members have, but the general public does not. The Opposition

should use every legitimate mechanism of the House to ensure that the British people know what is going on. If anyone tries to suggest that that is filibustering or using technical devices, he will stand condemned in the future. I am not filibustering, and I know the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that I was. I wish to respond courteously to his intervention.
Looking at the context in which the law of this country is supposedly to be changed by a few legal nuts and bolts, we can do nothing but condemn the Bill in all its inequity and its detail if we find the picture to be totally different. I cannot ask the Committee to condemn the Bill outright on this Amendment, but I can ask hon. Members to exclude the reference to subsection (3), and if we succeed we shall be doing quite well. If we set that precedent, perhaps we can exclude Clause 2(1).

Mr. Deakins: Now that we are in the initial stages of the consideration of the Bill in Committee, may we dispose of a canard once and for all? The hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls) put forward the novel constitutional doctrine that this Parliament can be bound by what the previous Government and Parliament decided. If that is typical of the approach of Government pro-Marketeers, they are departing from constitutional practice and precedent in more ways than one. I remind them that roughly 150 new Members have entered the House since June, 1970. I cannot speak for them all, but I know that I speak for some with whom I have discussed this point. We are not bound by the actions, decisions, interpretations or anything else of any previous Governments. People who want to justify to us this Bill and entry into Europe must do so on the merits and not on what the last Government did.

An Hon. Member: What about Roy Jenkins?

Mr. Murray: The Committee might apply its mind to Community law, which is what I propose to do by completing my quotations from the very useful article I have been quoting. The learned author says:
In the view of the Court"—
the Court of Justice of the Community—
the EEC treaty ' … has created its own legal order … having real powers resulting from a limitation of competence or of transfer


of powers from the States to the Community … [It] would be impossible,' argued the Court "—
in the case of Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, the famous Italian case—
 'to assert any internal text' "—
the Court is referring to constitutional texts—
whatsoever against the law created by the Treaty … without robbing it of its Community nature and without jeopardising the legal foundation of the Community itself.'
The Court deduced this supremacy of Community law"—
no less—
from the legal character of the Community legal order; from the transfer of limited State powers to the Community, and from the wording and spirit of the Treaty. 'This incorporation into the legal order of each member State of the provisions of the Community law,' observed the Court, 'and the letter and spirit of the Treaty in general, have as a corollary the impossibility of States to assert against the legal order accepted by them, on a reciprocal basis, a subsequent unilateral measure which could not be challenged by it'.
There the Committee will see that the limitations upon sovereignty spelt out explicitly by existing and current Community law are absolutely clear.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: Is it not also said that the Community law that we have to inherit is so imprecise that the British courts will find it impossible to give decisions on it? It will be a lawyers' bonanza, if it ever comes about.

Mr. Murray: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it will be very difficult for British courts, guided by the Bill, to reach satisfactory conclusions on what to do. If we had a different Bill, it would be another matter.
Perhaps before I conclude I may make a reference to the attitude that the previous Labour Government appeared to take to such legislation, I do not want to dwell on it, not because I cannot, but because I do not want to take up the time of the Committee.
I wish next to refer to a more recent article, which is even more stringent and even more important for us to consider now. It is by Professor H. W. R. Wade, a learned author of great reputation, and it appeared in the Law Quarterly Review for January. He deals with the matter I have touched upon in the previous article, and goes on, in his introductory

remarks on sovereignty and the European Communities, to say:
A primary principle of this new system is that community law becomes part of domestic law in each country, conferring rights on individuals which ordinary courts have an obligation to enforce, and to which domestic law must give way in case of conflict. This applies both to the regulations issued by the Council and the Commission in Brussels and to the many provisions of the treaties themselves which are held by the Court of Justice to be 'directly applicable' in domestic courts, i.e., which can be enforced without the need for some intermediate procedure or the fulfilment of some condition precedent.
Professor Wade then deals with the case of Costa, in which Community law was supreme over Italian law, even Italian constitutional law. He said:
This was all the more striking in that the Italian Constitutional Court, the highest legal authority in Italy, had already ruled in connected proceedings that the judge's duty was to apply the Italian statute without regard to the Treaty of Rome, since treaties in Italy (as in Britain) are not directly enforceable,
—according to domestic law, unless the law is changed to make it so.
Dealing with the basis of this new community law, he said:
The member states had accepted 'a clear limitation of their sovereign right, against which a subsequent unilateral law, incompatible with the aims of the Community, cannot prevail.' … This doctrine has been applied by the courts of several other member states, particularly where traders have disputed the validity of import duties and similar charges imposed by post-Treaty legislation in breach of Community law: examples are Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Belastingadministratie; Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen/Lippe GmbH v. Hauptzollant Paderborn; and Etat Belge v. Frormagerie Franco-Suisse Le Ski."
If hon. Members flinch at the fact that I have to resort to foreign languages to describe those cases, they must face up to the fact that there is a bit more flinching ahead.
These are recent cases. For example, the most recent case cited by the learned author is Etat Belge v. Fromagerie-Franco Suisse Le Ski decided in May, 1971. I cannot claim that my pronunciation is either authoritative or authentic. The author points out that the obligation that this country will be faced with undertaking on entering the Community is an obligation to ensure—this is an obligation the Bill purports to be fulfilling—that Community law is paramount in the United Kingdom from the moment of British entry.

Sir John Foster: Hear, hear.

Mr. Murray: We will see about that. The author goes on to say
So as we rehearse our part"—
and I echo these words—
for the concert of Europe we comfort ourselves by saying 'it will be all right on the night'.
We just hope that the concert will be all right and that we will be able to play part of some harmonious music when we are in. I confess that I have grave doubts about that when I look at the provisions of the Bill.
The author goes on to raise a doubt which echoes the doubts already expressed by hon. Members. He says that unfortunately things may not be quite all right on the night. He points out that a recent decision of the French Conseil d'Etat in the case concerning the French semolina factories in 1968 suggests that there will be difficulties. The judges of the French courts dealt with the problem on much the same basis as would a British court, taking into account the relevant legislation. What the court did was to resolve to stand firm in opposing Community law. It upheld the ordonnance of French law allowing duty-free entry to Algerian semolina despite the fact that the independence declaration by Algeria took it outside the impact of Community law and despite the fact that under French constitutional law treaties are given superior authority to statutes of the French Parliament. That raises a doubt which we have to set against the apparent lack of doubt of Mr. Bebr.
It has been said that the intention of the institutions of the Community is to impose supremacy of Community law over member States but already there is conflict of decisions among the superior courts and members of the Communities which makes it far from certain that the Community laws will apply once we have entered. This vast, expensive and complicated operation could all be set at nought if the members of the Community were to follow the kind of decision which the French court appears to have taken in the semolina case. This is not a case of the Community having said that Community law is to be supreme because it

can be seen to be a rational, reasonable and democratic law. We cannot tell what it will be. Something is being given to us while we are blindfolded.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the whole position of Community law is evolving as it has been evolving over the last decade or so. He is right in saying that the supremacy accorded to Community law has not been equally accepted throughout the Community. It is more readily accepted in Germany than in France, for example, but it is an evolving process. I dealt with all that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said in an address I gave to the Scottish Law Society last December.

Mr. Murray: I had the good fortune to read the printed address of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I enjoyed doing so but I am not sure that it answered any of the points that I raised. It was certainly an interesting article.
I should like to carry on with Professor Wade's article by telling the Committee of the problems which he thought to be important. Having dealt with the points raised by the learned author of the article in The Modern Law Review and his own contributions with regard to the difficulties of the French case, he goes on to suggest that there is a serious problem faced by the United Kingdom in acceding to the Community. He seems to find it more difficult to draft a Bill that would successfully bring us into the. Community than the Government appear to have found it. He faces problems which the Government have not faced. The problem he poses particularly is that of how the adjustment of the existing legal system of the United Kingdom can best be brought about so as to secure full respect for the new legal order of the Community which in principle this country will be bound to accept.
Professor Wade comes up with a solution entirely different from that of the Government. Quite apart from the problems of drafting a Bill and whether it should be large or small, the author—and his views are to be regarded with great respect because he is a man of great learning in this area and the article shows considerable research—says that


one expedient would be a European Communities (Annual) Act by which Parliament would once a year assert the supremacy of Community law and so resolve intervening conflicts at regular intervals. I put that suggestion to the Government in all seriousness.
Not only have the Government produced a Bill which they describe as nuts and bolts and which may be something quite different but it appears that in the eyes of at least one learned legal student a solution is not a once-for-all Bill of this kind selling our sovereignty to the Community but something in the nature of an annual Bill. If the Government were to come forward with a proposal something like this they might find a more sympathetic response from this side of the Committee.
That is setting the scene against which I would invite the Committee to look at the subsections. The subsections are in the Bill and the Bill describes itself as a Bill
To make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom.…
It is important to face the question of whether we are dealing with nuts and bolts or whether we are dealing with something bigger. It is important, for this if for no other reason, if I may pursue the metaphor I used earlier, that part of the task of uniting this country to the Community—possibly the whole of the task—can be viewed on the analogy of a pipeline joining Brussels to London. The pipeline involves a degree of international negotiation. Once we signed the Treaty of Accession on 22nd January, 1972, it could be said that the pipeline had been built from Brussels to the three-mile limit round the shores of this country. Until the Bill is passed the pipeline cannot come one inch over the three-mile limit because that requires domestic legislation by this country. I do not think that would be disputed by anyone. The task with which the Committee and the House are concerned is to see whether the pipeline is being completed by the Bill. That is what the Long Title purports to do, to enlarge the Communities, and that presumably means enlarging them effectively.
We therefore have to ask: where is the completion of the pipeline being carried out? If the Bill is truly a nuts and bolts

Bill there is a grave risk that it is inept and what we may be left with at the end of this procedure in Committee and later stages is a pile of nuts and bolts and no pipeline to join up to the Brussels pipeline which stops at the three-mile limit.
[Mr. BREWIS in the Chair]
6.0 p.m.
We must have more than nuts and bolts if we are to join this country to the Community. Are we dealing in subsections (2) and (3) with the nuts and bolts? If these subsections contain more than nuts and bolts, I put this serious charge to the Government. Why have they not mentioned in the Long Title anything about placing Community law in supremacy over the law of this country? There is no mention of that in the Long Title or in Clauses 1 and 2, although Clause 2(1) contains words which no doubt bear upon it. There is no mention of it in Clause 3, although there is a reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to the effect that Clause 3 introduces European jurisprudence. Therefore, I charge the Government in general terms on the first three Clauses. If there is nothing more than nuts and bolts there, how do we join the Community effectively? If there is something more than nuts and bolts there, why is there nothing about it in the Long Title?
I suggest that, under the guise of nuts and bolts, a whole panoply of engineering construction is going on, and that subsections (2) and (3) are indeed vital parts of that constructive process. If they are not beams, they are substantial pipes, perhaps to connect with the pipeline that arrived at the three-mile limit with the signing of the Treaty of Accession. If that is so, subsections (2) and (3) are a connecting up with the Community, and the connecting up is being done in a way which the Opposition and many other hon. Members must condemn.
Under the guise of interpretation in subsection (2) and publication in subsection (3), there is no escape from the conclusion that directly enforceable Community law in the treaties that are defined by this elastic and expansible definition and in all the ancillary agreements which may be made in the indefinite future will apply, and apply in increasing force and quantity, to build a bridgehead of


directly-enforceable law in the United Kingdom. This will be done by the operation of these two subsections, and of these the most damaging to British sovereignty is subsection (2). The interplay of Clauses 1(2) and 2(1) will produce the supremacy of Community law over domestic law and will build the bridgehead of Community law, which will in future occupy a dominant position. It will connect the pipeline which takes London to Brussels and completes the enlargement of the European Community. There can be no escape from that.
I cannot understand how the Government can continue to maintain that the Bill is an honest one, or that it accords with the Long Title under which it is presented. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government are trying to take the country blindfold into the European Community. They did not tell us what it meant beforehand; they did not publish the draft Treaty of Accession before it was signed; they are not disclosing honestly the true meaning of the Bill; neither are they disclosing the true content of subsections (2) and (3). For these reasons I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.
At the moment we are discussing only the first reference to "subsection (3) below", but that is a beginning, and I hope it is a precedent which we shall follow throughout the Committee stage until the whole Bill is destroyed.

Mr. Powell: I address the Committee under the same difficulties as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith); namely, that we are both, as indeed are other members of the Committee, subject to a division of duty. My right hon. and learned Friend was able to resolve that conflict by deserting this Committee, but I have resolved it by deserting my duties as a member of the Committee of Privileges. It will be immediately obvious that there is here a severe conflict, in view of the importance of that Committee; but that, Mr. Brewis, is only a faint image, a very small fraction, of the total difficulty caused by this Committee sitting here when between 150 and 200 hon. Members are on compulsory service in another part of the building.
I am following, briefly, the remarks which fell at an earlier stage from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. As he reminded the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has indicated that Tuesdays and Wednesdays will normally be reserved to consideration of this Bill, and that on Wednesdays most hon. Members will not be involved on Committee work Upstairs.
That leaves Tuesday, or 50 per cent. of the time, when many hon. Members will not be able to be present. I can see only one solution which will enable hon. Members to take an intelligent part in, or even to have an intelligent understanding of, what is being decided fatefully for the future of this country in this Committee. That is, that upon Tuesdays nothing should be transacted which is not repeated on Wednesdays, so that it is within the hearing and comprehension of that 200 of our colleagues who have an equal right with ourselves to know what is being done to the future law and constitution of this country.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Would it perhaps help if no vote were taken until such time as hon. Members who have been compulsorily serving on Committees on Tuesday are able to read in HANSARD on Wednesday what has taken place on the preceding day?

Mr. Powell: We must not be too pedantic about Divisions. We all understand that we are obliged to take part in many Divisions without having been able to follow closely the preceding debate—whatever is said out of doors, hon. Members understand the necessity and inevitability of that—but it is different when the decisions which we are taking are of the character of the decisions on this Bill. That is what justifies the remark of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and gives it its importance.
Right from the first speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General at about breakfast time last Thursday, it has been recognised that the Amendment moved at that time by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) is the opportunity—and both sides of the Committee have taken it as such—to explore the


mechanism of Clause 1. It was most helpful of my hon. and learned Friend to respond to that intention by the brief but useful analysis which he gave on 1st March. We are therefore not merely considering the specific Amendment moved by the Opposition, but we are looking at the whole working of Clause 1 and its consequences.
This is a very remarkable definition Clause. It has the harmless and common title "Short title and interpretation". Nearly all Clauses which bear that title are found towards the end of the Bills in which they occur. They are not Clauses which commonly result in a great deal of debate. Important points, of course, can be made on them; but they come at a stage when the Committee considering the Bill feels that the major matters already lie behind it, and it is with some relief that Committees generally hail the appearance of a Clause entitled "Short title and interpretation." Not so here. It is not for nothing that this Clause appears in the forefront of this Bill; for it is not a necessary trimming added on at the end; it is the operative Clause of the Bill. Certainly it is a Clause without which the whole operation of the rest of the Bill would be unintelligible and impossible.
That is because in this Bill the trigger word is "treaty" or "treaties". It is the word "treaty" which triggers off the far-reaching legal consequences of Clause 2 and subsequent Clauses. Therefore, the definition of what is meant by "treaty" is all-important. When we decide what is or is not meant in this Bill by "treaty" we determine the scope of the far-reaching provisions, provisions unexampled in the law of this country, which are to be found in Clause 2 and subsequent Clauses. The definition of "treaty" is, therefore, of the essence of the Bill. The Committee is certainly not devoting time and attention to a minor aspect when it devotes time to the content, and indeed to the form, of Clause 1.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, in his analysis of the Clause, identified 11 classes of treaty which this Clause brings within the definition for the purposes of the Bill. I should like instead to use a much simpler classification, a much rougher one. It is the distinction between existing treaties and

prospective treaties, between the past and the future.
On existing treaties I thought the hon. and learned Member was right to draw attention to the obscurity and indefiniteness of the Clause. Even where we are only concerned with bringing existing treaties within the definition, we do not have in the Bill any clear statement of what those treaties are. In an intervention in his speech, I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that in order to ascertain what are the existing treaties, the pre-accession treaties, set out in Part 1 of the First Schedule, it is necessary to resort to an Appendix—the footnote to the appendix says that it is not part of the accession documents—to Command Paper 4862, Part I (The Treaty and the Decision of the Council). So already we have to bring into the interpretation, indeed into the structure, of the law of this country, as it will be if this Clause is added to the Bill, a whole series of treaties and other documents of which our only knowledge as a Committee is the list set out in the appendix to that Command Paper.
It is worth noticing that they are not in fact all there textually. Only the titles are there. We are told that we can obtain the English text of some of them, but not of all of them. The English text of some is found in a series of Command Papers, Nos. 4863–7; but for the English texts of the rest we have to wait for other documents which are unspecified. Even therefore in respect to existing treaties, the Bill itself does not indicate the titles, let alone the content. It does not specify what treaties are being given all the consequences which the rest of the Bill invokes. So there is considerable ground for criticism and complaint on the ground of uncertainty in regard to the past.
6.15 p.m.
But the major matter which this Clause raises is the future. It could be argued that here Parliament is being asked to accept by a legislative act the consequences of that which it knows, to accept the consequences of treaties and other documents and agreements which, with the necessary study and research, it can procure and the contents of which it can ascertain. But this Clause includes, or enables to be included, under the definition of "treaty" treaties to be made in the


future. It is to this that I want to direct the rest of my remarks.
There has been repeated reference to line 5 of page 2 of the Bill, which includes with treaties,
and any other treaty entered into
—this must clearly for the most part, if not exclusively, be in the future—
by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom
Subject, therefore, to what have been miscalled the safeguards in subsection (3), any future treaty, whatever its content, which can be brought within that definition is by the operation of this Clause given whatever may be its effects for the domestic law of this country. Clause 2 is automatically invoked in application to future treaties of which we can know nothing except that perhaps they fall within the scope of the words in lines 5 to 8 on page 2 of the Bill. Whatever those future treaties shall say is without further enactment to be part of the law of this country and becomes such in anticipation by virtue of the definition Clause, Clause 1. We are legislating in anticipation and in complete ignorance of what we are enabling to be written into the law of this country. I want to put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—in his absence for a moment, to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—the major implications of this fact.
As I have said, my right hon. Friends have not, in my view, sought to conceal from the House their intentions, their hopes and their aspirations for the future development of the Community which they wish this country to join. True, we have been reminded that in the initial stages the operation of this Bill would be, if not confined to, at any rate for the most part concerned with a limited range of matters; important indeed, but for the most part limited. But the Government have not rested on that. They have not said, "This is what we are presenting to you now, and if we go further in future, if we enter on further stages of the development of the Community, if we agree that the Community's operations shall be extended beyond their present scope, we shall come back—or a subsequent Government will come back—to

this House for new legislation." They have not said that. They have been perfectly candid. They have said "We aspire to the E.E.C. becoming an economic and political unit." Indeed, they have justified on grounds of political, even more than economic, unification their desire that this country should become a part of the Community.
The proposition I want to put to my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench is the following. Am I right in thinking that the future development of the Community for which they hope would take place by means of a series of successive agreements, which would take the form of what might be treaties, protocols, agreements, understandings, but which are all documents or instruments such as by virtue of subsection (4) of this Clause would be "treaties", would fall under the definition in lines 5 to 8 on page 2? It is important that this point should be made absolutely clear to the Committee.
As each subsequent stage of the development of the Community takes place, will that, or will it not, be achieved by treaties which fall within the definition and scope of this Clause? If the Solicitor-General replies to that question in the negative, if he says "No, there can be no extension of the sphere in which Community law is being imported into the law of the United Kingdom by means of treaties on which Clause 1 will bite", we shall know where we are. We may still be reluctant to accept the machinery and the principle of this Clause; but at least we shall have some notion of what law it is, and on what subjects that law is, which we are by this Bill invited to make part of the law of this country.
However, if my hon. and learned Friend says "Yes, the extension of the operations of the Community into one sphere or another will, as in the past—as in the protocols and agreements of the past, as in the Treaty of Rome itself—be carried forward by treaty-making in the broad sense of 'treaties' which Clause 1(4) permits"; if he say "Yes, those will, so far as I can see, be 'treaties entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as ancillary to any of the treaties by the U.K.' "; then, on that hypothesis, what we are doing by this Clause is to leave it completely open as to what in future will become the law


of the United Kingdom: there will be no future legislative act, no future Act of Parliament required, whatever is involved for our domestic law in the economic, monetary or political unification of the community. On that hypothesis this is not only to be the first Act of Parliament. It will also be the last Act of Parliament; and no further Act of Parliament will ever be required for that purpose.
I anticipate that, with whatever qualifications, it will be the affirmative and not the negative answer which the Solicitor-General will give. Indeed, if I correctly understood his brief intervention in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, he would regard such extension as falling under lines 7 to 8 on page 2. He would regard that process as falling within the definition of "treaty" for the purpose of this Clause. Therefore, realising, as we must, that we shall never be allowed to legislate again at any stage in the process, we turn to look at the protection, as my hon. and learned Friend called it last Thursday, which is offered by subsection (3).
Among the many useful services which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith has performed for the Committee, one of the more eminent was to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the first half of subsection (3), so far from being a safeguard, is a threat. For it automatically ousts any test whatever by any process of law as to whether a treaty is rightly identified as falling within the scope of subsection (2).
I am not resorting to a hypothesis so remote as that the Government might want to include the Treaty of Vienna amongst the "treaties" for the purposes of this Act—and I did not follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, in his flights of fancy—but if it were not for the first half of subsection (3) there could be a reasonable doubt as to whether a given treaty, which the Government of the day wished to regard as a treaty for the purpose of this Clause, was or was not ancillary to any of the treaties. But for the first part of subsection (3) there would be a remedy in our courts for those who took the opposite view. It could be decided in the proper way whether the Government were

or were not complying with the basic Statute.
That possibility, however, is removed by the wording of the first half of subsection (3). A court faced with that would simply have regard to the order; for it would find in the Act of Parliament that the order is to be conclusive. Without imputing to this or to any other Government the desire to abuse the treaty-making prerogative in a way which this House is not now contemplating, the fact remains that it is a safeguard which is removed, and not one which is provided, by the first part of subsection (3). The hon. and learned Member was right to draw attention to the dangers of subsection (3) in that respect.
The second part of subsection (3) has other implications, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East drew attention. At first sight there appears to be some sort of safeguard there. If it is a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom—I must admit that I am not clear whether further Community treaties which extend the scope of the Community's operations would all fall within that description, but let us make the maximum concession and suppose that they would—what is the safeguard? The safeguard is that they only attract the consequences of the Bill if a draft Order in Council has been approved by this House and by another place.
Let us imagine the scene. It does not require a severe effort of imagination. It is a scene which has already been rehearsed, and the formulae have already been pronounced, many times in these debates. I can see the Minister of the Day standing at the Box presenting the draft Order in Council. He would inform the Committee that the purpose of the draft Order in Council is to recognise as a treaty for the purposes of section 1 of the European Communities Act, 1972—a purely imaginary Act, but never mind that—a treaty which Her Majesty's Ministers have just concluded, and which, after concluding it, they have been able to print and render available to Members of this House. The Minister would say, "In accordance with Section 1(3) of the principal Act, this is now being laid before the House".

Mr. English: I think the right hon. Gentleman may be wrong. I do not think any such text would be published in English, any more than some of those we are dealing with now. Furthermore, I have no doubt that we should be told that we were not approving the treaty but only recognising it in English law.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I shall come to that point, but no doubt the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is technically correct. Still, I will try to make a probable picture; and in all probability the Minister presenting the draft Order in Council for the approval of the House would be able to refer to a copy of the relevant treaty, which had been made available to the House. I do not want to pile on the agony, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West invites me to do.
The Minister would draw the attention of the House to the fact that under the treaty which had just been made we were obliged to pass the Resolution approving the Order in Council, and no doubt the Chairman or Speaker of the day would rule, rightly, that all the House was entitled to direct its mind to was whether it should be a treaty for the purposes of Section 1 of the Act or not. The Chair would immediately pounce upon any hon. Member who dared to discuss the bearings and contents of the new treaty. He would say it was out of order, and he would be right. The only thing that would be in order would be the simple question whether the treaty should be recognised as a treaty for the purposes of Section 1 of the principal Act. If any part of the House should be disposed to be recalcitrant, we would hear the diatribe, with which we are becoming familiar, about the relationship between the exercise of the treaty-making prerogative of the Crown and the rights of this House. Technically, we should be told, we would be able to go into the Lobby and vote against the Resolution. But it could still be enforced against us. I do not know whether a ratification of that particular treaty would be required; but at least the government would, as this Government have already done over and over again even in the last few weeks, stand at the Box to demonstrate to the House that it could not in practice throw the resolution out. They would no doubt say "You already

knew about it." They would say, "What have we been talking about these last few weeks? You knew the treaty had been signed. You knew all about it. Why are you cavilling now when you are asked to give it operation under Section 1 of the principal Act?" It is no difficult feat of imagination to construct the scene on these future occasions when a Resolution would come before the House.
There is, of course, no safeguard here, short of tearing up and throwing over all that the Government are trying to construct, an action which would become progressively more and more unthinkable, up to the point of impossibility. What this Clause does, by its definition, is ensure that without further operation of Parliament, without any further legislation whatsoever, the changes in any sphere in the domestic law of the United Kingdom, in the life of the people of this country, so far as it is regulated by law, which are implicit in any future development of the Community will be automatic. This House will not only have washed its hands of the past but also given away any control for the future. Remember, we have already seen a growth in the scope of directly-operative Community law. Indeed, the growth in the scope of directly-operative Community law is in the very nature of that developing and evolving Community which is the objective of my right hon. Friends in the Government. Far from being near the conclusion of a process, we are only in the early stages, and we are being invited by this Bill to renounce for ever, blindly, for the whole of the future, all control by Parliament—except that of a simple Resolution, in the circumstances which I have outlined.
We have heard a lot in past weeks about the treaty-making power and prerogative of the Crown. As a Tory I am very tender regarding the prerogative. I do not wish to see diminished the prerogative power which an Executive exercises, subject to the ultimate right of this House to criticise it and, if it can, to pull it down. What we see in this Clause is not treaty-making by prerogative: it is legislation by prerogative. By the simple prerogative act of making a treaty, a future Government could make the domestic law of this country. This Clause means prerogative legislation, and prerogative legislation is a contradiction in


terms. It is a contradiction of the very nature of this House. Under the innocence of a Short Title and definition Clause we are presented with an invitation to legalise prerogative legislation once and for all and to end, in an ever-expanding sphere, the central function of this House.
We would be mistaken if we thought that we were dealing here with a little matter. We are dealing with the greatest of all matters. As has been said before, and I have no doubt will be said again in the coming debates on these Clauses, "it is good for us to be here".

Mr. Denzil Davies: I agree practically entirely with the observations of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He has put them in a far clearer way than I could possibly do, especially when he said we were seeing legislation by the exercise of prerogative. We are also seeing a limitation of the sovereignty of Parliament by the exercise of the prerogative without Parliament's being given the chance to decide the extent of that limitation.
I should like to refer to the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in his opening statement and to the article by the legal adviser of the Commission from which he quoted. No doubt, in the interest of brevity, my hon. and learned Friend did not deal fully with some of the arguments put forward by Mr. Bebr. The point about that article and his views which should be made at the outset is that there is a clear movement among the Community countries, more so perhaps in Germany, whereby the municipal courts of the constituent countries will be prepared more and more to recognise Community law, even if and despite the fact that there may be an Act of the Parliament of the constituent country contrary to that Community law. There are cases in the books of German administration tribunals where this has been done. In one case, a municipal judge in Gremany has said virtually that if in future a litigant appearing before his court could show that the domestic law of the country was contrary to Community law, the court would declare that Community law should have precedence, despite the fact that domestic law was contrary to it. It

will not even be a matter of asking the Parliament of a member country to harmonise its legislation with Community legislation. The courts will simply override the domestic legislation in favour of Community law.
It may be that in the first few years following our entry the English courts, with their long tradition of enforcing the Statutes of this Parliament and nothing else, will shrink from that ultimate step. But I have little doubt that before long, once the idea of what Community law means has been instilled into them, this will be the final step. Whatever Parliament says, should it say something contrary to Community law, the courts of this country will overturn all that they have done for centuries in order to enforce the law of an outside body which may be contrary to the law of this Parliament.
I return to the Amendment, which seeks to delete subsection (3). Perhaps I might go hack to the opening remarks of the Solicitor-General in the early hours of Thursday morning. The hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to give the impression that subsection (3) was a great bulwark, a great guarantee of the freedom of the House of Commons to discuss these matters.
Perhaps we should look at subsection (3) in order to see exactly what this safeguard is. The subsection is drawn very narrowly. It is not a wide subsection taking in all the treaties. First, we should realise that it applies only to United Kingdom treaties made after 22nd January, 1972. There may be nothing exceptional in that. However, there are many treaties entered into by the Communities which are not also entered into by the member States. Many association agreements and treaties with Greece and various other countries are entered into by the Communities themselves.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith said, this is a very curious concept of treaties. The Communities are not nations. One's normal understanding in international law is that nations make treaties and that supranational bodies of this kind do not enter into what are called treaty arrangements.
For obvious reasons, subsection (4) extends the definition of "treaties" to include any international agreement. The normal meaning of an international agreement is an agreement between nation


States. Here we are asked to say that there are certain treaties which can be entered into by those bodies which are not nations. One could question whether these were international agreements at all. However, I suppose that the Government would say that the Communities had been delegated this power by the member States.
6.45 p.m.
Be that as it may, there are many treaties which pre-date 22nd January, 1972, and examples are set out clearly in the Blue Book. There are many treaties which are entered into by the Communities and which will not be subject to the so-called protection of the safeguard contained in subsection (3), narrow as it is.
Let us consider what subsection (3) is supposed to cover. I am a little surprised to see that it imposes an obligation upon the Crown to obtain Resolutions of this House should it wish to describe a treaty as "a Community treaty". The subsection says:
If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community treaties … the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded …
However, it goes on to say that a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972, shall not be regarded as a Community treaty unless it has the approval by Resolution of each House of Parliament.
I have looked through the Bill to try to discover where else the words "Community treaty" are to be found. I can find nowhere in the important first few Clauses. We find the words in the definition but nowhere else. Clause 2(1), which is the operative provision incorporating into our law all the rights, powers, liabilities and obligations arising from these treaties, instead of saying that these obligations arise by or under the Community treaties, refers to obligations arising by or under "the treaties".
I ask the question more in ignorance than anything else. If a treaty is entered into by the United Kingdom within the terms set out in subsection (2)—
… any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States"—
what if the treaty is entered into by the United Kingdom with one of the Com-

munities? Why is it necessary for the Crown to ask for an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons to declare such a treaty to be a Community treaty? Once it is a treaty, all the rights, powers, obligations and liabilities arising under the treaty immediately, in a self-executing manner, become part of the law of the United Kingdom.
I shall be happy if the Solicitor-General tells me that my interpretation is wrong. In my ignorance it seems to me that it is not necessary for the Crown to ask the House of Commons for an affirmative Resolution, flimsy though that may be, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhamption, South-West said.
The Crown does not have to come to the House of Commons. It does not have to say anything. It has concluded a treaty with one of the Communities, and that becomes a treaty, according to the definition of
any other treaty entered into".
That may seem a little startling at first hand, but it is completely in accord with the self-executing nature of this matter.
We know that regulations can be issued from Brussels and that they become part of our law immediately. If a treaty is entered into between the United Kingdom and the other countries and the Community institutions, why should not that immediately become part of our law? As we have seen, there is very little we can do to amend and there is very little that we can do to reject.
Perhaps I may take this a little further until the Solicitor-General tells me I am wrong. I will follow the analogy of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith about the European-happy Prime Minister and the European-happy Government which decide that possibly the House of Commons is becoming too much of a nuisance. Suppose that a treaty is entered into with the Communities, in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, abolishing the House of Commons. The Bill says:
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States …
That is a treaty between the United Kingdom and other Communities or with other countries. If my interpretation is right, the Government do not have to come to the House of Commons at all


because all the rights arising under that treaty, which will take precedence in the courts of this country as a result of Clause 2(1), will take precedence over any Statute or any enactment provided by the House of Commons.
That is not at all surprising when one considers that in the nature of joining the Communities these self-executing regulations are not meant to be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny. Why therefore, should a treaty changing the law of the United Kingdom be subject to such scrutiny when regulations changing the law of the United Kingdom are not subject to such scrutiny? I could be wrong in my interpretation. If so, the answer has been given by the right hon. Gentleman: that the treaty is then brought before the House of Commons and we are asked to approve it by an affirmative Resolution. We are not asked to approve it by Act of Parliament. As I understand the rules of the House, affirmative Resolutions cannot be amended; they are either accepted or rejected. The Government are saying in relation to this particular legislation that it cannot be amended: it must be either accepted or rejected.
We know very well the difficulties of rejection which are to be put before us. We heard one of them last night from the Solicitor-General. He adduced the political realities of the situation, and this phrase and variations on it will, no doubt, be used time and time again ad nauseam by the Executive to justify their legislation, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, by means of the prerogative.
Finally, subsection (3) does not apply to the pre-Accession Treaties. That may be a truism, but it would have been open to the Government to have made the pre-Accession Treaties subject to subsection (3). They could have said that the treaties listed in paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 1 and those described in paragraph 7 should have been subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons. As we know, however, they chose not to do so; they said that we should accept the whole package and indeed, that we could not even amend it.
As a new Member of Parliament I was rather disturbed at some of the arguments coming from the Government benches to justify the way in which this nuts and bolts legislation has been intro-

duced and to justify the limited scope of Amendments.
I was sorry to hear what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), for whose intellect and ability one has considerable respect. I did not think I would live to see the day when he adduced in favour of the argument the complexity of the matter, the numerous volumes and the fact that it would take so long to get through the matter and discuss it. I am sure he appreciates that his was a very dangerous statement and a very dangerous precedent.
I am not making a party point, but the Executive always likes to get its legislation through. Governments always try to brush aside opposition. Future Executives will no doubt look at what the hon. and learned Gentleman and others have said and they will adduce the same reasoning in favour of trying to steamroller legislation through the House of Commons.
The political realities mentioned by the Solicitor-General were setting very dangerous precedents in the same way as the Government have been setting very dangerous precedents by drafting a Bill the effect of which is to limit the sovereignty of the House of Commons without giving it the proper channels through which to scrutinise and amend.
It has been said very convincingly from both sides that Clause 1 is not merely a definition Clause. As one who humbly tried to draft a few Amendments when the Bill was first published, I would say that this was a tentative view which some of us formed. We were rather surprised to see a definition Clause appearing at the beginning of the Bill. It is not unusual but my experience from years of interpreting Statutes as a lawyer is that one normally sees definition Clauses at the end of Bills. The reason is that this is not a mere definition Clause; it is far more. It incorporates the treaties into our law. Indeed, I would argue that it seeks the consent of Parliament to do so. That is why the Bill should have been amendable, but this view was rejected. In any case, Clause 1 is far more of a definition Clause.
Having worked on some of the Amendments, I am rather disturbed at the view put about, perhaps by the man himself,


that according to the parliamentary draftsman this was a definition Clause. Once that authority had spoken, this was a definition Clause for all purposes and that was the end of the argument.
Clause 1, far from merely importing definitions, limits the sovereignty of the House of Commons. That is what this legislation is about. The Government, through their prerogative power, seek to limit the sovereignty of Parliament without giving Parliament the full opportunity of amending any of the provisions. I believe that to be a claim which has not been made by an Executive in this country for a very long time. It is very dangerous and, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West pointed out, for the future this will clearly be the case, whatever the arguments in the past or the future might be. The Executive are taking away and will take away our sovereignty by their treaty-making power. They will then be using that treaty-making power to legislate in the House of Commons. Anybody who doubts or disputes that the Bill involves the limitation of the sovereignty of Parliament should look a little more closely at what has been written and said about it. There is absolutely no doubt of this. That is what we are discussing on this Amendment and, indeed, on the whole of the Bill.

Sir J. Foster: Mr. Brewis, the way the debate has shaped means, I think, that it could go on theoretically for ever.

Hon. Members: It will.

Sir J. Foster: Hon. Gentlemen have given themselves away by their interjection. The debate is centred on the fact that Parliament does not know enough about the Community. Therefore one must explain every bit of the law so that it is not assumed, as in most Bills, that the basic principles which have been accepted need no further explanation or need explanation on broad lines but not in detail. Obviously, any Bill which had the word "person" and meant a man or a woman could involve a dispute about hermaphrodites; it is difficult to know whether they are men or women.
It is, in my respectful submission, an extension of the rules of procedure which makes this an open-ended debate. Hon.

Members could always say, rather like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), that we must get down to basic principles and understand what the law is about and go into the details of how the community law overrides the domestic law. The hon. and learned Gentleman could have said that in one sentence. However, he did not; he went on to allude to cases which have been cited.
[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
7.0 p.m.
The comment on these Amendments is very simple. The definition Clause is a definition Clause. It is at the beginning of the Bill. I can imagine the objections which would have been made had it been at the end of the Bill. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would have said "How can we discuss the details of the influence of Community and English law without knowing the treaties and without being able to discuss them first?" In this instance, so that right hon. and hon. Members should know what a treaty is and should understand how the Bill applies to treaties, the definition Clause is at the beginning. The pre-January treaties are to be Community treaties. Those entered into after January, 1972, have a safeguard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) drew a picture of the House being forced to accept a post-January, 1972, treaty. There is no question of the House being forced; there is the affirmative Resolution procedure. The House can overthrow the Resolution by voting against it. That is the safeguard. It is a safeguard which is implicit in every affirmative Resolution. There is no need to draw this picture of the Minister at the Dispatch Box forcing a treaty through; the House is entirely free to reject it.
One question which was posed was: why bother to have a post-1972 treaty alluded to in the Bill at all? It is there to give it the safeguard. Not all treaties entered into with a member State are Community treaties. For example, if there were a treaty to set up a statue of Sir Winston Churchill in the Trocadero in Paris, that would be a treaty with a Community country, but it would not be a Community treaty.
Many subjects are not affected by Community treaties. We have to distinguish between those which the Government invite us to treat as Community treaties and those which they do not invite us to treat as Community treaties because they have nothing to do with the Community, for the moment anyway, until we have one Government for the whole of Europe or for the whole world. There are many subjects which have nothing to do with the Community, although treaties may be entered into regarding them with Community countries.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that that is his answer to his right hon. Friend, may I ask him to explain, so that we have the illustration absolutely correct, what would happen in other instances? As an absolutely practical example, let us take a treaty signed to govern the arrangements which the Community may make to form a monetary and economic union. If that were done by treaty, it would be brought before the House under the procedures outlined by his right hon. Friend. What does he think would be the status of the argument which would then take place in the House? Would it be an argument about the merits of the matter, or a discussion whether it was a treaty instrument which had to be accepted? Secondly, would it be amendable in any form? Thirdly, would such a matter as that be properly dealt with under this provision in an hour and a half under the affirmative Resolution procedure?
Those are three points, although there are several more possibilities, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has to describe if he is to outline exactly his alternative view of the situation from that of his right hon. Friend.

Sir J. Foster: I wrote to The Times about this matter. I think that some of the procedures for Parliament to inquire into Community legislation will have to be altered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why not? It has nothing to do with the Amendment. As we are entering into this new organisation, I think that perhaps we should have a Standing Committee to consider the implications. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen should say "Oh." It does not have to be in the Bill. It is a

perfectly simple view. As a matter of common sense, if we go into the Community some of the machinery of Parliament and of Government will have to be altered.
Under the present procedure these matters have to be dealt with in an hour and a half. However, it is common sense that that is easy to alter. We are not bound by that procedure for ever. Such matters, although not amendable, would be discussable in every aspect. In other words, Members of Parliament would be able to say that they did not agree with the setting up of an international monetary unit for Europe and would rather have certificates of deposits, and so on. I think that that would work perfectly well.

Mr. Powell: Is my hon. and learned Friend really saying that he believes that on a Resolution to approve a draft Order in Council recognising such a treaty as a treaty for the purpose of the Act it would be permissible to discuss a matter such as the monetary union and the different forms that it could take?

Sir J. Foster: If a double taxation treaty is brought in under the Income Tax Act which alters the law with regard to citizens of, say, Ruritania in many particulars, as I understand it, it would be open to a Member of Parliament to say, "I do not agree with the Clauses about joint residence; they are inconsistent with the articles of the double taxation treaty with Uruguay. I do not approve of that because it should be" so and so.

Mr. Powell: That would be in the regulations.

Sir J. Foster: No. It would be in the schedule to the treaty attached to the Order in Council. If the Order in Council specifies a treaty, I submit that we would be entitled to look at and discuss that treaty—[Interruption.]—not amend it, and reject it.

Mr. English:: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be wrong, and I will say why. In the Bill we specify the Treaty of Accession. In the Treaty of Accession on the first page, which for this purpose is page 9 of the volume concerned, we accede to all decisions of the Council of Ministers. However, not only have we not been provided with


an English text of those decisions, but some have never been published in any official text. I will name one if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes me to do so. We are not entitled—the Leader of the House has specifically refused me on the Floor of the House—to look at all the documents mentioned. I know that that is a normal principle of English law, but it is not the case here. If it is not the case here, why should it be the case with some future instrument?

Sir J. Foster: I come back to the fact that it was possible when a treaty was brought in by an Order in Council—for example, an extradition treaty, a double taxation treaty or, in the old days, a slave trade treaty—to examine the treaty—[Interruption.]—but it was amendable.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, because I always listen to what he has to say with great interest and respect. The Bill talks about the order being regarded as one of the Community treaties. That, to put it in parliamentary terms, is the question. I understand that the question can be resolved in one of two ways: either it is an Order in Council where it is conclusive, or it comes before the House for affirmative Resolution that it shall be so regarded. The regard is in respect of its being a Community treaty or not, not on the merits of what is in the treaty. So surely the question which is put from the Chair on the appropriate debate is that the Order in Council be passed, and all it says is that it is to be regarded as a Community treaty. Therefore, the merits of the matter cannot be discussed, and, in fact, such discussion would be out of order.

Sir J. Foster: With all respect for the hon. Gentleman's argument, I thought it did not follow from the fact whether it is to be regarded or not that the merits cannot be discussed, because in arguing about a treaty and whether or not it is to be regarded as a treaty what criteria are to be applied? One cannot apply any criteria except that one does not like or approve it.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would apply his mind to this. A treaty comes

along about the European monetary union and the Government want to say it is a Community treaty. The right hon. Gentleman the member for Wolverhampton, South-West draws the picture of the Minister saying it must be a treaty. What argument is there? Why should it not be? Only because it is not acceptable.

Dr. John Gilbert: Surely the criteria are laid down between lines 5 and 9 on page 2 of the Bill. Those are the criteria.

Sir J. Foster: That is not a criterion; it is a description, which is very different. Is one to accept somebody as a man or woman? One can only decide by saying "He is an hermaphrodite; I do not want to accept him." It seems to me an absolute negation of common sense and legal common sense that in deciding whether it is a Community treaty one says that one does not like it. Otherwise, how can one object? That is why I quarrel with the premise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who says that one can only decide whether it is a Community treaty or not and cannot look at its merits. Therefore, presumably everything the Government want is a Community treaty and everything they do not want is not.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Reverting to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) regarding the description of a Community treaty, I would suggest that he is absolutely right. If one looks at the definition of Community treaties, if it is not in (a) or (b), then it must be in lines 5 to 8, and all we decide in Clause 1(3) is whether or not it is a Community treaty. To find that out one goes back to Clause 1(2) and in this respect to lines 5 to 8. It is not a matter of definition; it is a matter of description.

Sir J. Foster: I thought I said "description". The answer is that in subsection (3) it is a United Kingdom treaty; therefore, it is in subsection (3) that one gets this procedure of affirmative Resolution.
Returning to the questions put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), we come back to the same grievance of the hon. and right hon. Members opposite. They say they ought


to be able to amend it, and I revert to my argument that one can discuss a thing just as well without amendment as with amendment. There is no difficulty at all. If one's mind is on some narrow point, it can be made and then it will be answered. There is no difficulty at all in that. There seems to be the fallacy, the non sequitur, in The Times article and among hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that Parliament is being stifled and that the rights of democracy are being abolished because they cannot amend something which, if amended, would cause the whole thing to fall to the ground.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman thereby accept what his right hon. Friend said in describing this form of action that the House of Commons would have to take as prerogative legislation? Does he think that is a fitting term for the new process which would be adopted under the recommendation that we have? For surely, even if we accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of what could be debated in such circumstances—and I do not accept what he says; I think his right hon. Friend is more correct—is it not the case that if a treaty were concluded about an economic and monetary union, as may happen quite soon, and brought back to this House to be dealt with in a treaty and in an affirmative Resolutiton, then the whole status of the Community would also be involved in the debate, and the rejection of the affirmative Resolution would involve the ending of the whole Community; and therefore it would be prerogative legislation in the sense that this House of Commons would have surrendered its capacity to discuss an economic and monetary union in the way that we would have been able to discuss it if we had not interfered with the present powers of the House of Commons? So is it not the case that his right hon. Friend is correct?
I think everyone in the House will agree that these are extremely important questions that we are discussing. Is it not the case that if this Clause and this Bill were to pass we should have altered a great part of the legislative process that is accepted in this House, including the way in which we would deal with matters of such supreme importance as how we

were to run the monetary and economic union of Europe?

Sir J. Foster: Being a good European, I agree entirely that by joining the Community we are going to make enormous changes. That was decided by the House of Commons, and I think hon. Members should have accepted it instead of keeping on batting against it.

Mr. Foot: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer; I consider it very candid, and I think it is "Yes". Could I put this further point? If that is the case and we are to make these enormous changes, introducing this form of prerogative legislation—as his right hon. Friend has described it, and even if that description of the process is not correct—how is it that we were told in the White Paper of last June, which was supposed to explain the whole of the Government's proposition on this, that there was to be no erosion of essential sovereignty? What the hon. and learned Gentleman is describing is an erosion of essential sovereignty, and he says he thinks it is a wise course to take. This is a matter of great relevance because the Government have been arguing that we have known all the time what the proposition is. What we are discussing here today is something very different from what the Government have ever put before the nation.

Sir J. Foster: I do not agree with that, because we are part of the Community; it is not as if the Community were a static organisation of which we were outside. On the assumptions we are making now, we are part of the Community. I could go into the philosophy of the matter, but, in my view, what is more important than the philosophical attitude as to whether or not we have less sovereignty is that because of these great changes and because things will be done in Brussels which will affect us—and this is a purely personal view; I have written so many letters to the newspapers lately that I cannot remember what I penned and what I said, but I think I wrote this and am assuming I did—I am in favour of some form of Committee of this House to examine proposals for legislation at the centre and also to give, through Parliament, instructions to our representatives there. That is one safeguard. There is another safeguard, as I see it—and here


I must join issue with the hon. Gentleman because it seems to me that this is quite a normal process for a treaty.
Because of the importance of a change in the relationship between this member of the Community and the Community itself, we want some early procedure which takes care of that. We also want to change the timetable or the affirmative Resolutions under the Bill. This can be arranged. In my view, the Government would be wise to have a full discussion on this, but it seems to me to follow that because the Question put by the Chair would be purely that an order pass or not pass, if the question in the Bill is that it be regarded as a Community Treaty, the objections to doing so must depend on its contents—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] We are at issue there, so neither side will persuade the other.
It is important to realise in the context of this Bill that the definitions of "Community treaty" are to get all the pre-joining treaties in, which we will agree to accept, and to ensure that the others are submitted to Parliament to see if it wishes to have them.
The hon. Gentleman lastly asked whether we would be at such odds with the Community that we would have to leave if we objected. The way that the Community has worked in practice is that it has to work by unanimity. If one country is found to be out of step with legislation, it is not kicked out for one fault——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It cannot be kicked out at all; there is no provision for that in the treaty.

Sir J. Foster: But the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale envisaged that that country would be at such odds with the Community that the Community would bust up, and it would be kicked out in that sense.

Mr. Lewis: What I said was that the Government of the day would give way and sell out, as they have done during these so-called negotiations.

Sir J. Foster: I do not understand the objection, since they would then presumably be giving way to the Opposition. I thought that the hon. Member wanted us to sell out.
The Community works by agreement, and if economic and monetary union with Europe is not agreed to by Britain, another round of negotiations stops.

Mr. Deakins: It is delightful to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), because we are all extremely grateful that he should have given up so much of what must be his extremely valuable time to attend these important deliberations. I do not agree with his basic remarks, particularly when he implied that we should forget detailed discussion of the Bill and almost let the thing go through. I hope that on reflection he will feel able to withdraw that suggestion the next time he intervenes. If that is his conviction, it displays a totalitarian cast of mind which, as a relatively new Member, I find incredible in an older and longer-serving Member.
I will not enter into the debate on federalism, but it seemed that the hon. and learned Gentleman and one or two of his hon. Friends behind him who were nodding away so vigorously in the background were looking forward to the day when there would be a federation and when they could take part in these deliberations themselves, no doubt in Brussels or Strasbourg, and this place would revert to what I imagine they really want it to become if we enter Europe—a place with the status of a county council in relation to the European Parliament.

Sir J. Foster: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that my time is valuable?

Mr. Deakins: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman's time is valuable because I understand that he is an eminent and distinguished lawyer. My time is not valuable: that is why I am always here.

Sir J. Foster: I ceased to be a lawyer seven years ago.

Mr. Deakins: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I thought he was still an eminent practising international lawyer. In that case, some of his remarks become more understandable. For example, he said that the loss of sovereignty was not very important. I hope that, when he reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will retract that statement. This is not what the Government have been telling us.
The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to appoint himself an unofficial spokesman for the Government in answering points made in this debate. Perhaps he has made a reply by the Solicitor-General unnecessary, but I doubt it. What I could not understand, knowing that the hon. and learned Gentleman was a lawyer, was whether he was interpreting the Bill as a lawyer or was speaking authoriatively, ex cathedra, for the Government.
It is a delightful experience for the first time to speak in this Chamber in a Committee of the whole House and to be under only two constraints instead of three—the constraints of relevance and order but not that of time—and to be able to develop one's speech in a logical way instead of having to cram it in, as most back benchers do, in five, 10 or, grudgingly, 15 minute's in a major debate. It is a delightful experience——

Mr. Walter Clegg: It may be for the hon. Member.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Member has a remedy. There are plenty of places in the House to which he can go if he does not want to listen to my views, as he has so far listened to those of other hon. Members.
Under subsection (3) of the Clause, why should future treaties be subject to parliamentary approval when we are told that the existing treaties are not? There appears to be a completely illogical distinction between the two. Surely, a Community treaty of the past and a Community treaty of the future are both equally important to this country, however one defines them. It seems absurd to deny this Parliament the right to amend and to discuss fully the existing treaties and yet to give it the right to discuss and approve, if not to amend, future treaties.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: rose——

Mr. Laurance Reed (Bolton, East): rose——

The Chairman: To whom is the hon. Member giving way?

Mr. Deakins: To both hon. Members, I think.

The Chairman: Then we will take the nearest first.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recognise that if one is joining a club with existing rules, one joins with all the existing rules, but that if one is a member of the club and it decides to change its rules in future, one then has the opportunity to consider, before they are changed, how they shall be changed.

Mr. Deakins: Yes, except that many hon. Members want an opportunity to discuss the existing rules, which we have not been able to discuss, in spite of what the Government have said, in any of our previous debates, for the very good reason that they were not available in English until early this year. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman would surely not argue that we should join a club the rules of which were not all known to us when we were being asked to join. We should have made certain first that we knew all the rules.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does it not go further than that? They were not available until after the Government had signed the Treaty of Accession and had become a member of the club, so I am one Member who did not have a chance to see the rules, let alone discuss them. Having joined, we are told that we cannot discuss the rules which were not available.

Mr. Deakins: I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend, which reinforces my point of view, which is shared by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
7.30 p.m.
I turn now to the position which might in future arise. We must have a definitive answer from the Solicitor-General in due course as to what the powers of the House of Commons would be over a future Community treaty presented to us under the affirmative Resolution procedure. Suppose, for example, which is quite likely to be the case, that at some stage in future one of the basic treaties—the Treaty of Rome—were to be amended. A series of Amendments would obviously have to be embodied in


another international treaty, a treaty of a Community of which the United Kingdom was part. One can imagine the scene. The Minister would come to the House and say "Here is this affirmative order approving these vital Amendments to one of the basic Community treaties." What happens then? We discuss it for a short time. Suppose that the House rejects it. If we have that power to reject Amendments to one of the basic treaties, why should we not have the power to amend the existing Community treaties if either we have not known about them before or they have never been subjected to any affirmative procedure in the House?

Mr. Laurance Reed: The answer is simple. When one is a member of the Community one is an integral part of the decision-making process, and on an issue of that kind one would have the right of veto. We have the right of veto at the moment, but we do not want to exercise it because we want to become a member.

Mr. Deakins: I take the point. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, but why should we not have the right of veto as to part instead of simply having the right of veto as to the whole? Hon. Members might like 90 per cent. of what is involved in the Common Market, but why should they not have the right to amend the remaining 10 per cent. that they do not like in the Community treaties? Why should they be faced with the awkward and difficult choice of having to accept or to reject in toto?
My second point concerns the wide drafting of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) called Part A of subsection (3) and the fact that this can mean more than a Community treaty. This procedure can cover any treaty whatsoever. Look at the wording:
If Her Majesty by Order In Council declares that the treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded".
We have no safeguard whatever in Part A of subsection (3). We do not even have the safeguard of a capital letter for the word "treaty" which would at least

imply that the treaty therein contained, which was to be regarded as part of Part A of subsection (3), would be a Community treaty about which we know something. This could apply to any future treaty into which the United Kingdom entered.
We know that there is a wide definition of "treaty" in subsection (4). This gives the Executive much wider powers than even they appear to have asked for in any of the debates we have had up to now on the subject of the Common Market. In fact, it will rob Parliament of any right whatsoever if the Government so decide to debate any treaty arrangement, international agreement, protocol or the like which they decide shall come within the scope of Part A of subsection (3).
On Part A of subsection (3), I should like to know why the Order in Council procedure specifying a treaty as a Community treaty should be necessary if all the Community treaties are available to us and are defined in subsection (2) of Clause 1. Why is Part A of subsection (3) necessary at all? Are the Government in any doubt as to what a Community treaty is? If they are in doubt, they should say so. If they are not in doubt, surely Part A of subsection (3) is unnecessary. It may be that Part A of subsection (3) applies only to treaties entered into after 22nd January, 1972, That is not at all clear from the wording of subsection (3). I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us something about this in his reply. What is meant by "treaty"? Under Part A of subsection (3), what is the position of the Community treaty dated between 10th November, 1971, and 22nd January, 1972? Are they covered? Are they to be brought in, by this Order in Council procedure, under Part A of subsection (3)? What is their position? That is a point which the Solicitor-General should clarify in his reply.
There is a point which has been mentioned by one or two of my hon. Friends. What about Community treaties generally which are not specified in the Bill? Are the Government arguing that they are not specified in the Bill and, therefore, will not be caught by the provisions of subsection (3) because they are unimportant? If that is the case, I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the


fact that whilst some of them, such as settling freight rates on the Rhine, would seem to have little importance and/or relevance for this country, there are a number of subsidiary treaties which are extremely important for the future of this country and its relationship with the rest of the world.
There is a set of so-called treaties. Many of them are simply agreements concerning the relationships between this country and the under developed countries. I can give a few examples. There are the two decisions of 21st June, 1971, about tariff quotas and tariff preferences for certain iron and steel products in what is supposed to be the implementation of the scheme of generalised preferences dating back to the second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in March and April, 1968. I shall not go into details. We shall obviously have an opportunity later of looking at these things more closely, but I do not think the Government could possibly claim that those were unimportant treaties and should not be specified.
Still on the subject of our relationships with under-developed countries, there are the agreements between the Common Market and India and Pakistan on trade in jute products. There is a similar agreement concerning cotton with a number of under-developed countries—India, the United Arab Republic, the Republic of China, Pakistan and Korea. All these are important and ought to have been specified in the Bill. Is it that the Government have not specified them because they regard them as unimportant?
Then there is a second category of so-called treaties, and one must refer to them as treaties since subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause define them as treaties. There are a number of decisions, agreements, and conventions concerning trade agreements between the Community and third countries, all of which—if subsections (2) and (3) go through—will become part of the law of this country. I will mention only a few because I do not think that this is the Amendment on which to discuss them in detail.
There is the agreement of 9th July, 1961, setting up an association between the Community and Greece. There is the agreement of 28th March, 1969, setting up an agreement between the Common

Market and Tunisia. There is also an agreement between the Common Market and Morocco dated 31st March, 1969. Ali of these we shall in some way have to accept. There is the Convention of Association between the Common Market and the African and Malagasy States associated with that Community, the so-called Yaoundé convention. Is that not important? If so, why has it not been specified so that it will be brought within the provisions of subsection (3)? There are a number of others on the subject of trade agreements with third countries but I will not bore the Committee with listing any more. We shall be discussing them in due course.
There is also a third category of so-called treaties which are affected by the Amendment. This is a rather mixed bag and I shall not bore the Committee except to mention that two of them are the important legal conventions on jurisdiction and the enforcement of civil and commercial judgments of 27th October, 1968, and the convention on the mutual recognition of companies and bodies corporate. Under this provision both of them will become part of the law of this country, but it is not yet clear whether they will be specified individually by Order of Council under Part A of subsection (3).
I conclude this part of my remarks by mentioning two very vital treaties. Indeed, it may amuse some hon. Members to realise that they are treaties. Under the definition in subsection (4) they are treaties. First, there is the final communiqué of the conference of Heads of State and Governments of 1st and 2nd December, 1969, the so-called Hague Agreement, which goes very wide indeed and contains far more meat and far more danger to the future of this country and Parliament than some of the so-called Community treaties which are listed by name.
As hon. Members will be aware at The Hague Conference the Heads of Government first envisaged the final financial system for the common agricultural policy. They started the process of giving the Commission its own resources, which is surely a major first step on the road to internationalism and supra-nationalism. There is also a reference to direct elections to a European Parliament in that agreement. The aim of an


economic union is stressed. Finally, and not least, political unification is mentioned, as is harmonisation of economic policies.
Would any hon. Member on the Government side of the Committee, or any pro-Marketeer on either side of the House of Commons, say that that particular so-called treaty is not of vital importance to this country's future or that it is not of at least equal importance to the Treaty of Rome? Yet it is not separately specified. Will that merely be presented to the House of Commons not in the Bill but by the Order in Council procedure under Part A of subsection (3), under which we do not even have a chance to discuss it, let alone amend or reject it, but we simply have to take it?
Finally, there is the resolution of the Council of Ministers and of representatives of the Governments of the member States concerning the attainment by States of economic and monetary union within the Community. That was on 22nd March, 1971. That is, perhaps, the most important of all of these Community treaties. That is the treaty which, more than anything else, points the way to supranationalism and federalism in the Common Market. Are the Government seriously saying to us that, first this treaty is not important enough to specify in Schedule 1 in relation to Clause 1(2)? If it is to be so specified in any case, are the Government saying that we shall have no opportunity of discussing it because it will be presented to the House and to the country under Part A of subsection (3), under which, as I said, we do not have an opportunity of discussing it?
It is absolutely disgraceful that the 10 volumes of treaties with which we have been presented cannot be amended in any way and indeed, under the provisions of the Bill, cannot be rejected by the House of Commons—although obviously we shall do our best to see that at least some of the more important ones are discussed.
Thirdly, still on Part A of subsection (3) how can Parliament adopt, even by the procedure under Part A of subsection (3), existing treaties which are not laid before the House, which are not known to the House, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr.

English) keeps reminding us, are not even available in English and some of which are not available in any language?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They have not been seen by the Government.

Mr. Deakins: How can we accept this as falling within the ambit of Part A of subsection (3)? Will the Solicitor-General say whether these particular treaties and decisions of the Council of Ministers will be laid before Parliament'? Will they be laid before Parliament before the Bill is passed? What is the Government's intention? It would be absolutely monstrous if we were to pass Clause 1(3) not knowing all the treaties, all the international agreements and all the decisions taken by the Common Market in its various bodies which will affect the future of Britain.
7.45 p.m.
My fourth point is connected with the second part of subsection (3). Many right hon. and hon. Members have asked—I do not intend to labour the point—what is to happen under Part B of subsection (3) if we are presented with a treaty under the affirmative Resolution procedure which we then want to reject. Will not there be a tremendous constraint on hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons, whatever their views on the Common Market, in rejecting a particular treaty in toto for fear that we shall cause the break-up of the Common Market or, at least, such estranged relationships between ourselves and the Common Market that we would impair the achievement of many other things that the pro-Marketeers in the House of Commons would want to achieve?
Is there not a danger that a Minister would come to the House in the future, under Part B of subsection (3), waving a treaty and saying, "It is all right. You have a perfect right to reject this treaty in toto. That is your right under Part B of Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act". But he may well say—it is difficult to imagine this now, but I want to give one or two examples shortly of what will happen even if we do not enter the Community—"I ought to warn the House of Commons that if hon. Members do not approve this treaty, country A, country B or country C, the other member States of the Common


Market, will decide that they will not approve some particular item in the Council of Ministers that we want. They may, for example, decide not to renew the agreement with New Zealand, or to do something dreadful about fisheries, or something which would betray our moral and, indeed, contractual obligations on sugar". Therefore, the Minister would come to the House of Commons and there would be—I have to use these words—a form of blackmail on the House to pass a new Community treaty even under the affirmative Resolution procedure in order that the Government can have their way or protect their interests in some other aspect of Community interests or legislation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has said that he is not too anxious about taking up time, so may I quote to him a letter I received from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as far back as July of last year, when I raised this point? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if we go into the Common Market, if we accept the Rome Treaty, if the Treaty of Accession is agreed and if this legislation is agreed,
Under Article 189, regulations and decisions are binding in their entirety; and consequently the House of Commons, in taking any action in respect of a regulation or a decision, would have to refrain from anything inconsistent with it. For the implementation of most directives, domestic legislation is necessary, and this would be made in accordance with our usual constitutional procedures; it would be open to the House of Commons to amend or alter the legislation which the Government of the day presented, so long as the changes which the House of Commons made were not such as to frustrate the required result of the directive.
In other words, we can say and do whatever we like provided that ultimately the Government can do just what they want to do.

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I fully agree with all he has said. With great respect, I think he will find that the Government are trying to make a distinction between a new Community treaty and regulations, decisions and directives which stem from previous Community treaties. If that is so, at least we have salvaged something from the wreck of parliamentary sovereignty.
My point on Part B of subsection 3 is that we shall be so blackmailed by

international bargaining, in which the House of Commons will take little or no part, that we shall be told—if a Goverment's future depends on it, they will certainly whip their supporters into the Lobby—that we shall have to approve a Community treaty as the price of other objects that the Government wish to achieve within the context of the objects of the E.E.C.
My next point on Part A of subsection 3 is for me a minor one because I am no great lover of the Royal Prerogative, but I must put my personal prejudice aside because the Royal Prerogative is still part of the constitution of this country. Is it not the fact that under this provision there is a very severe restriction on the Royal Prerogative? The subsection says that
a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January, 1972
other than certain classes of treaties
shall not be so regarded unless it is so specified … and approved by resolution".
The Executive are making a minor concession here but it does not alter the fact that at the end of the day they will have their own way under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
There is a further point that the subsection applies to all Community treaties, but the question is whether it can possibly apply to any other treaties. If we are being given the privilege for the first time of breaching and weakening the Royal Prerogative in its treaty-making powers, by being able to discuss and reject future Community treaties, should we not be able to do the same on future treaties entered into by this country whether or not they are to be regarded as Community treaties?
My penultimate point on subsection (3) concerns the matter raised in intervention as to whether the provisions of the subsection are in any way akin to those in the legislation of the other existing member States of the E.E.C. Did France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries, when they were approving the Treaty of Rome, pass a similar provision as that contained in subsection (3), perhaps with variation to accord to their own parliamentary procedure and practice? Did they reserve to themselves the right to discuss and, if necessary, reject without the right of amendment, future Community treaties? The point raised by the


hon. Member in that interjection made me dubious whether there was not a distinction between the existing member States of the Community in the way in which they interpret and apply Community law in their countries. If that is the case, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us, surely the United Kingdom should not be asked to accept limitations any more than any other member State of the Community in its powers of rejection and discussion of future Community legislation and Community treaties. Why should we accept more than the others? If one of the Six has safeguards in whatever legislation it passed at the time of accepting the Treaty of Rome, surely, the House of Commons should have no less safeguards in subsection (3).
I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us that subsection (3) gives us as many, if not more, safeguards as the other Community countries have. If he cannot, we should be wise to accept the Amendment and hope to put back something much better at a later stage of the Bill which would do much more to safeguard the rights of Parliament.
My last point concerns future treaties and their scope. It was alluded to by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) when he made the point about extending the future scope of Community legislation embodied in Community treaties. In addition to Community legislation there are Community treaties, and it is only with these that we are concerned in the subsection. In a Written Answer to a Question about whether membership of the E.E.C., apart from the requirements of harmonisation on the value-added tax, would affect the Government's freedom to alter indirect taxation, the Minister of State, Treasury said:
Member States of the European Economic Community are at present free to determine and alter their individual excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation …
Notice the significance of those two words "at present". The hon. Gentleman continued:
Harmonisation in these fields is an ultimate aim but no decisions have been reached on the timing or the details of this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 191.]

Subsection (3) therefore means that the Government are fully prepared to accept future Community treaties. Of course, it would take place after a certain amount of discussion and consultation and, no doubt, a Select Committee of the House would have looked at the draft, and so on. We should feel we were doing a good job and earning our £4,500 a year—it might be more by then—and that we were doing a good job for Parliament and for the people we represent. But at the end of the day, if there is to be harmonisation and horse trading within the Community, the beginnings of which can already be seen, we are treading on very dangerous ground. By horse trading I am referring to the fact that the Dutch have made it clear that when the Yaoundé Convention comes up for renewal in about 1974 or 1975, they will refuse to accede to the renewal unless very greatly increased powers are given to the European Parliament.
Some hon. Members may well like that, and I do not dispute that it is a point of view they are entitled to hold. They are federalists and we shall see in the course of the Committee stage that they emerge more and more in their true colours. I am not quite sure where the hon. and learned Member for Northwich stands on this but I have the impression that he favoured a federal solution. We are not here disputing federalism, but the Government have not told us what their attitude is. They are implying all the time, in subsection (3) in particular, in their attitude to future Community treaties and in their attitude to harmonisation—the answer I have just read is an illustration—that they will go more and more towards federal-type solutions in Western Europe in spite of what our revered Prime Minister will have told President Pompidou before the conclusion of the negotiations.
I believe that the battle is not yet and is probably not on this Bill. If the Bill is passed, future battles in this Chamber on Community affairs will rank Members not so much in terms of pro-and anti-Marketeers, although that will play a large part in our future deliberations, but in terms of federalists and anti-federalists. It will be interesting to see where the Government stand on this important issue because the signs are already there. They are trying to get through important treaties like The


Hague Conference decision and the Treaty of Monetary and Economic Union, and this suggests they already have in mind a federal solution. Will the Solicitor-General have the courage of the Government's convictions, if they are indeed the Government's convictions, to tell us what the true position is?

8.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: A number of questions have already been posed, and it may assist the Committee if I intervene at this stage.
No one if I may say it yet again, can have under-rated, or can now under-rate, the importance of this part of the Bill. A number of hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have commented on certain aspects of our accession to the treaties and certain aspects which follow from the combination of this Clause and, for example, Clause 2(1), not merely to argue that they are important—I do not challenge that—but also to argue that they are astonishing revelations.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) read the letter he received from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last summer. With the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, that letter was enunciating no more than what is inherent in the words of Article 189 and in the 1967 White Paper published by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman, I know, is affronted, and always has been affronted, by the principle there. One thing can be said about it, that it is not new.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree. What I did was to try to explain to the Solicitor-General's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who was trying to tell the House that we can do this, that and the other and that we could amend and so on, that in fact we could not do so and that all our powers would be taken away from us. The fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told me that last year does not ease the pain this year.

The, Solicitor-General: I appreciate the continuous and anguishing nature of the hon. Gentleman's pain. All I am pointing out is that the cause has been well-known and apparent. I do not underrate its importance, and I do not mean

to be frivolous about it, but most of these important points have been clear for 10 years. Most of them were explicitly spelt out at the time of the 1967 application, and most of them have been re-elaborated and re-presented in the book of speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I do not under-rate the importance of these matters, but are we to assume that hon. Members have voted as they have on the three stages we have so far taken on this application in ignorance of these important points?
I do not underestimate the importance of the scope of the step embodied in the Bill, but when we consider the relationship of these treaties to future treaties I ask the Committee not to over-estimate the scope of what is here being done, not to under-estimate the fresh steps that would have to be taken if the nature and shape of the Communities were to change. whether in a federal direction or in a quite different direction. These are matters for the future, dependent on how the Community grows, if it does. I am not under-rating the optimism with which the application has been followed through from the outset, but we cannot see beyond this step at this stage.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If, as the Solicitor-General says, these constitutional proposals are extremely important, and if, as he says, they have been very well known to Ministers for a very long time, why was mention of them almost totally omitted from the Government's White Paper of last July, and totally omitted from the popular version of it which was distributed, at public expense, to very large numbers of the public?

The Solicitor-General: That is an unfair representation of the way in which the case has been presented throughout.

Mr. Jay: rose——

The Solicitor-General: I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies)——

Mr. Jay: rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I cannot allow two hon. Members to be on their feet at the same time.

The Solicitor-General: I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question. I say again that his representation of the case was unfair. In the White Paper, apart from the speeches made in the House throughout, we find references to the impact on this country's sovereignty. I shall deal with the matter in more detail in taking up one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Llanelly.
I was about to deal with one of the hon. Gentleman's points on the placing of the definition Clause. I am not quite clear whether this is being treated as a matter for praise or blame of the Government. I agree that the House is entitled to regard the definition Clause appearing in this part of the Bill as an important part of it. It is not unusual, though it is not general, for definition Clauses to appear at the beginning rather than at the end. Wherever they appear, they are important, because they define the terms used in the Bill. [Interruption.] I hear the sotto voce comment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) with interest, because it reminds me of a point I wanted to make, that the Industrial Relations Bill produced by the previous Government in May, 1970, was one of those Bills which had their definition Clause at the beginning. That is a rather unusual example, but it shows the options that are open.
I come to the general point raised by the hon. Member for Llanelly and the extent to which supremacy of Community law is dealt with in the Bill. There will be further occasions to go into that, when we discuss Clause 2 in particular. It relates to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) as well.
The Bill seeks to make clear that, as has always been plainly necessary, the courts in this country could give effect to the jurisprudence of the European Court, and to the treaty obligations as they were discussed to some extent by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), when I was away from the Committee for a time, and therefore requires the courts to give effect to the supremacy of Community law. It is true that that problem has arisen in a number of the member States, and where it has arisen they have, on the cases cited, been able so to do.
To those who ask about the effect of that provision in the Bill on the ultimate sovereignty of the House for the future of this nation, an answer was given by Lord Diplock in a speech last autumn. I do not have the text here, but he said—and this must be regarded as the reality in this country, as in any other member State—that the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament, if it chose explicitly and plainly to determine that the effectiveness of this Bill was to be brought to an end, would remain. That is the way in which the often-cited phrase "The very continuance of the Communities would be called in question" would no doubt arise. That is not a situation the Government or anyone else who has been supporting this application regards as a reality, still less as a reality to which anyone would look forward. It is, as Lord Denning, I think, said in the decision in the case when Mr. Blackburn applied in the courts last year, a matter of theory which bears no relation to reality, and if it arose the courts would have to face it at that time.
I hope I have explained the central position on that matter. We can return to it on Clause 2.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that in his view it would be perfectly competent for this Parliament, if it should be so foolish as to enact the Bill, or a future Parliament, to repeal the Measure, and that that is all the safeguard we have?

The Solicitor-General: What I am saying is what has been said time and again in the context of these discussions; namely, that, as the Leader of the Opposition said on 28th October, when we accede to the treaties everyone recognised what is involved in the signature of such treaties. We do so bound in international law and intending to remain bound. Equally it has been plainly understood that if certain situations arose—which the practice of the Community makes plain would not arise—so that the existence of the Community was called into question. at that point the realities of national sovereignty, the fact that we remain a sovereign state, would and could be reasserted. That is something which is not in prospect by any of us supporting the present application.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Of course Parliament can pass a Bill which puts an end to the present Measure if it becomes law. My point was that we cannot be certain that the courts of this country by that time would accept the latest Statute in precedence or over and above Community law, and if our courts were to do so and someone were to appeal to the European Court, that Court certainly would not accept domestic legislation as against Community legislation.

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to discuss at this stage that interesting question——

An Hon. Member: Awkward question!

The Solicitor-General: It is not an awkward question. It is a fascinating question about which a lot has been written in this and other contexts. I do not wish to go into it at this stage because it arises more plainly on Clause 2. The intention of the Bill is to secure the supremacy of Community law. In the kind of situation I have been talking about a different situation would be supplanting the present.
If I can now turn to some of the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire. East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and picked up to some extent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I was asked what other treaties are lurking in the background to Clause 1 and Schedule 1. I do not know whether it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest who used the word "lurking"——

Mr. Powell: Not I.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that "lurking" was not one of the most characteristic words in my right hon. Friend's vocabulary.
Clause 1 and Schedule 1 defined the principle of the treaties for the purposes of the Bill. The item in paragraph 7 in Part I of Schedule 1 is the most extensive. The treaties covered by that are listed in the appendix in Part 1 of the Accession Treaty. They are listed in the same form in volume 1 of the 10 volumes of ancillary treaties published on 4th February. In those volumes one finds the

English translations of those listed in the appendix to Part 1 of the Accession Treaty. Those are the treaties covered by the definition.
8.15 p.m.
My right hon. and learned Friend asked what would be the effect on Clause 2(1) of omitting Clause 1(3), which is the effect of the Amendment. The effect of that would be to diminish the safeguard in subsection 3(b) and would be to remove the convenient—and I mean that literally—provision contained in the first part of Clause 1(3). It might have no legal effect on existing treaties but it would certainly make it less convenient, in the context of the questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend, for citizens, courts and legal practitioners not to have available to them the first part of subsection (3) so as to set beyond doubt the question of whether or not a treaty was a Community treaty. The main treaties are specified by name in Part I of the First Schedule.
Several members have suggested that the first part of subsection (3), far from being a shield, is a threat. This point was particularly made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I put it forward, as I did last Thursday, as a useful clarifying evidential instrument. I would certainly challenge the proposition that the first part of subsection (3) can be used as a threat. Although the Order in Council can declare that a treaty specified in the order is to be regarded as a Community treaty it would be useable only in relation to some part of the European Community treaty complex.
I am dealing here with fanciful suppositions. Suppose any Government of this country were to seek to approve in an Order in Council a treaty which was miles away from a Community treaty there is no doubt that such a treaty would be open to challenge in the courts of this country. One remembers the scope of the decision of the House of Lords in the Ansiminic case which showed that our courts are prepared, if it is manifest that vires are being used for improper purposes, for a purpose in bad faith or wholly outside its scope, to act against such a move.

Mr Jay: Can the Solicitor-General explain something to those of us who are


not lawyers? What the first part of subsection (3) appears to say is that if Her Majesty by Order in Council "declares" and so on, the order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded. If that is so, how can it be argued it was ultra vires or had nothing to do with the Community? The Clause says this "shall be conclusive" without qualification.

The Solicitor-General: I forget the exact words of the Ansiminic case but there are a number of cases, not just freak cases, where judge-proof clauses, as they are called by the administrative lawyers, have regularly been called in question and struck down by the courts. If the use of the power so conferred goes outside the scope of the treaty and is manifestly in bad faith, that kind of challenge could be directed against it.

Mr. Peter Shore: I do not think that my hon. Friends who question the hon. and learned Gentleman on this are suggesting that there would be an improper labelling of treaties as Community treaties when they clearly were not Community treaties. What they were suggesting was that, given the ambit and purpose of the Community, very large matters could be properly regarded as Community treaties and be treated in the way outlined in that part of the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I take their point, and I am dealing with the extreme case. Looking at it in that way, one comes up against the other protections. First, there is the second part of subsection (3), and also the extent to which any rights or obligations could be seen to flow from any marginal treaty of that kind. I do not think that the first part of subsection (3) can be regarded as a threat in that sense.

Mr. William Baxter: If there is any dubiety about this, it is better that it should be made quite clear now when the Bill is before Parliament. We have not learned our lesson from what happened recently about Northern Ireland. There is surely a responsibility upon the Government to be explicit as to what their intentions are so that there shall be no dubiety.

The Solicitor-General: I take the hon. Member's point. It is not sufficient for me to make clear what are the intentions

of the Government. It is right that the hon. Gentleman should say that the legislation should make it clear. The first part of subsection (3) contains no more than a reasonable, sensible and necessary evidential provision for removing doubt about a treaty that is plainly in the complex of those related to or ancillary to Community ones and is for the convenience of those who would have to apply them thereafter. It does not need to be changed.

Mr. Jay: Will the learned Solicitor-General deal with——

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry——

Mr. Jay: rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not remain standing if the Solicitor-General will not give way. The Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend asked why the words
as a treaty ancillary to
were included in Clause 1(2) and omitted from Clause 1(3). The provision under subsection (3) for specifying a treaty as one to be regarded as a Community treaty applies to either kind of treaty referred to in subsection (2). The categories listed in lines 5 to 8 include first:
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States".
There is no "ancillary" phrase there. It refers to a treaty entered into by the Community with or without the member State as co-signatory. The second category is a treaty:
entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom
Either of those categories of treaty can be the subject of an Order in Council under subsection (3). The phrase "ancillary to" does not carry through into the second part.

Mr. Powell: I presume that my hon. and learned Friend means in the former of the two cases where the United Kingdom is a co-signatory?

The Solicitor-General: I will come to that next. I was about to explain that point.
The Order in Council procedure in either half of subsection (3) can apply


back to both categories as I have explained them under subsection (2) but—and this is the point made by the hon. Member for Llanelly and picked up by my right hon. Friend—any treaty to which the United Kingdom was a party, whether it was of the first kind as set out in lines 5 and 6 on page 2, or of the second kind as set out in lines 7 and 8 on page 2, would have to be covered by an Order in Council under the second part of subsection (3).
The second part of subsection (3) requires an affirmative Resolution to an Order in Council in respect of any post-22nd January, 1972, treaty to which the United Kingdom accedes after that date. That category—the treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party—includes the first group on lines 5 and 6, a treaty entered into by the Community with the United Kingdom as a member State, and it includes a treaty ancillary to the Community treaties entered into by the United Kingdom. What it does not include—and later Amendments will allow us to discuss this in more detail—is a treaty entered into by the Communities or any of them to which the United Kingdom is not a party. To that extent the Community's power to make treaties in the areas where it can do so without the United Kingdom being a co-signatory is outside the scope of subsection (3). I hope I have made that clear.

Dr. Gilbert: Will the Solicitor-General explain a little further the exact meaning of line 6 on page 2:
with or without any of the member States"?
He used the phrase "where any of the member States was or was not a cosignatory". As one with no training in the law, I should be most appreciative if the hon. and learned Gentleman would make it clear whether or not that phrase embraces situations in which the Community is making a treaty with one of the member States as an equal contracting party as at arm's length and also situations where the Community and the member State on the one hand together are making a treaty with some other party at arm's length?

The Solicitor-General: The point is that if the Community enters into a treaty is will be doing so only within the scope of its treaty-making power as defined in the existing treaties. It would have to

enter into such a treaty with another State. That other State could be an outside State, the United States, let us say, or it could be a member State. If the Community was making a treaty with the United States, the member States might join with it as co-signatories on one side of the table, or a treaty might be between the Community and the member States on opposite sides of the table. Both are covered. What comes out of subsection (3) is that any one of those treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party, and any treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party after 22nd January, 1972, is subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure set out in the second part of subsection (3).

Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting my hon. and learned Friend, but this is difficult and detailed. He has used the phrase "entered into by the Community within the scope of its treaty-making power". I take that to be not only its present treaty-making power under the Treaty of Rome, but any treaty-making power as conferred or enlarged by subsequent instruments?

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend moves apace to a point already raised and which I shall come to.

Mr. Baxter: rose——

The Solicitor-General: I will deal with these arguments by stages. I hope that I have made it clear that any future treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party in the Community complex is subject to the provisions of subsection (3)(b).

[MISS HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Baxter: May I have clarification on a very simple point? If we were members of the European Community and a treaty was in existence on nuclear power for the Community including West Germany, could that treaty be ratified by this House merely by an affirmative Resolution, or could it be rejected by this House?

The Solicitor-General: Of course it could he rejected or ratified. I shall come to that in my discussion of the consequences of the subsection (3,b) procedure. I think that was the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the


Member for Hertfordshire, East. If either House refused consent to an affirmative Resolution under the second part of subsection (3), that treaty would form no part of the treaty complex and would not operate to change the law in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West came back a moment ago to the question of whether or not the Communities treaty-making power can or cannot be extended. I ask the Committee to follow me closely. I will try to be clear about it. Can there be, he said, any extension of the sphere of treaty-making power on the part of the Communities by means of the definition of the word "treaties" in subsections (2) and (4)? The answer is: yes, if and in so far as the scope of the definition of treaties or Community treaties is extended to cover future treaties, but that can happen only subject to the safeguards of the second part of subsection (3).
I should make clear to the Committee the extent of the Communities' treaty-making power. This was foreseen in the debates in 1967. The Rome Treaty itself lays down, in Articles 111, 113, 114, 228 and 238, the scope of power of the Communities to make treaties. This was expounded by the Leader of the Opposition in the debate on 8th May, 1967, when he said:
It would he implicit in our acceptance of the Treaties that the United Kingdom would, in future, refrain from enacting legislation inconsistent with Community law. I should explain, too, that apart from the impact of Community law on our present and future national law, adherence to the Treaties would restrict our independence of action in future international dealings in matters falling within their objectives. Broadly speaking, it would have the effect of vesting in Community institutions our power of concluding treaties on tariffs and commercial policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1089.]
That is quite clear.
I think the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins) asked if other Community countries provided in their legislation for their acceptance in advance of the treaty-making power of the Communities. The answer is that once they adhered to Article 228, which says that treaties arrived at under that Article take effect and are binding there after on the member States, they accepted

that proposition, and it is a proposition which we are accepting.

Mr. English: I quite follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but I do not see that it very much matters. Normally in a federal States or federal institution, if the federal government, as it were, exceeds its powers, an individual can bring it before the appropriate court of the federation. But in this case, if the Communities exceeded their treaty-making powers no individual could bring them before the court of the Communities because it would not be a matter directly addressed to the person concerned, which is the only case in which an individual can bring an action against any Community institution, and then only under certain restrictions. While the hon. and learned Gentleman may be absolutely correct in some form of theoretical law, how can this be enforced?

The Solicitor-General: This is a point to which the hon. Member keeps returning, and I do not criticise him for doing so. It is slightly off the main stream of what I am talking about. If an act of the Communities is effected by a regulation-making act or a treaty-making act which is outside the scope of the Community institution's power, it is an invalid act and the hon. Member may be right in saying that one could not go, as it were, for a declaration to challenge the validity of that act. The individual concerned, if he claimed to be subjected to any consequences or penalty as a result of that invalid act, would be able to challenge the validity of it.

Mr. English: There are precedents.

The Solicitor-General: The right to challenge the validity of the act when it is being used against one is something available to the individual. It is in contrast to the other right, which of course the hon. Member has in mind, the challenge to the validity of the act itself at the outset. This is away from the mainstream of this argument, and we shall have an opportunity to return to it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I should like to put a question——

The Solicitor-General: I want to be allowed to get on with my argument.
I was coming to the extent to which the second part of subsection (3) can be


regarded as a safeguard. It is an important point, but nevertheless it is one to which there is a valid and effective answer. The treaty-making power of the existing Community institutions is as defined by the existing treaties. If any attempt was made, or any desire expressed, by member States to extend that treaty-making power outside the commercial and tariff territories which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition five years ago, that would involve an amendment of the Community treaties—of the same quality, for example, as those listed in the first part of Schedule 1 which altered the nature of the institutions in establishing a single Council and so on.
Treaties of that kind to extend the scope of the original treaty-making power of the Community institutions would require participation of member States. They would be altering the ambit and nature of the powers hitherto vested in the Community. They would be treaties falling within the second part of subsection (3) to which the United Kingdom would be a party and in respect of which the procedure there set out would have to be followed.
There are many previous examples of treaties of that kind. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West thinks he has an answer to that and says "But look at how frail is the effectiveness of the power reserved to Parliament by the second part of subsection (3)". It is there that I challenge my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Powell: Since my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is coming to the main argument, I take it that what he has just said would apply not only to an extension of a treaty-making power in the Community, but also to an extension of a sphere within which the Community could make directly-acting law?

The Solicitor-General: That would be right, yes. The existing power of the Community to make directly-applicable law derives from the treaties and the operation and the various articles there set out. Any extension of that would require further participation by the member States in the making of new treaties which would be subject to the

second part of subsection (3) as a safeguard.
I suggest that that can be regarded as a significant, effective and valid safeguard, and that my right hon. Friend and anybody else who subscribes to the same argument are wrong in that context to regard that as a frail bulwark, as he suggests. The point of order argument is not one I would regard as impressive. The question before the House would be whether to approve by resolution a draft of the Order in Council specifying whether a treaty should be so regarded. I cannot imagine that in such a debate on that question it would not be open to the House and hon. Members to argue that we should not approve this Resolution because we do not like this treaty—this treaty to which the United Kingdom is to he a party and which would extend the present ambit of Community institutions. The question would be entirely at large, and it is important that it should be so.
Hon. Members have raised the same argument in the context of debates that we have already had, and the House would still be subject to the same proposition that a treaty has either to be approved or rejected in that debate. But the Executive would be subject to exactly the same constraints in making such a treaty as are described by Lord Atkin in the passage which has been cited so many times. If the Executive made a treaty which came under this category seeking to extend the scope of the Community institutions, it would know that it did so beyond the limits of what Parliament would affirm at its peril. If the treaty was not so confirmed by the Order in Council procedure, it could not be taken to ratification and would not form part of the Community treaties in the context of this Bill.
It is wrong to say, as a matter of parliamentary control and as a matter of law, that the House and Parliament are now buying blind the whole future development of the Community. I do not conceal from the Committee that those who have supported this application do so in the belief that the institutions of the Community will develop and prosper and will be a framework in which we can enjoy a better future, both nationally and internationally.
8.45 p.m.
To suggest that the whole of the road which may or may not lie ahead of us is now pre-empted, that there is no turning back, no opportunity for Parliament to check or regulate which road we go down, is to misrepresent, though not in any sense deliberately, the decision that we are now taking. At each stage of extension of that kind, Parliament would retain the right to affirm or not to affirm, and before that stage was reached all the opportunities for debate and discussion would be developed.
The hon. Gentleman asked me where the Government stood on the question of a federal or non-federal Europe. One could pose the same question—I do not mean this irreverently—to each party in this House, each group of a dozen members of the House of whatever party, because this is something which is developing, and all those matters are yet to be debated, both here and in Europe, and the opportunity for checking or restraining further progress does follow from the second part of subsection (3).

Mr. Denzil Davies: I raised a point of order in my speech, relating to the second part of subsection (3). May I put it again to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Suppose that after 22nd January, 1972, the United Kingdom entered into a treaty with the Communities, and also possibly with the other member States, which was clearly a treaty within the scope of the fundamental treaties, and suppose the Executive did not seek to specify that treaty as a Community treaty. Does it follow that any rights arising under the treaty would not be enforceable in English law?

The Solicitor-General: Dealing with the United Kingdom, a treaty entered into after 22nd January, 1972, will not be regarded as a Community treaty unless it is so specified and unless a draft of the specifying order has been laid before the House. There is a firm safeguard for a future treaty in respect of which this country is a party. I have dealt with the point earlier, and I come back to it now.

Mr. Jay: The hon. and learned Gentleman is apparently now saying that Parliament would be free to reject one of the

affirmative Resolutions implementing a new treaty entered into by the United Kingdom; so presumably that treaty would not have legal effect in this country. If that is so, why should we not be equally free to reject one of the existing treaties, and why should all discussion of such treaties be ruled out of order?

The Solicitor-General: From the very outset of the application made by the previous Government it was made clear by the then Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary that the Government accepted the treaty regulations and decisions flowing from them. It was made explicitly clear in the speech by Lord George-Brown to the Council of the W.E.U. which I have cited many times. That is why the package which exists is a package; and no one who has considered this with any seriousness—and I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member—has doubted that future treaties are in a different category. That is why they are covered by the second part of subsection (3). In respect of the future treaties Parliament will control the ultimate right to pull down the Government, to overthrow the prospective acceptance or approval of the Order in Council. Specifying the treaty would remain, and it really would be unfair to Parliament itself, and almost a parody, to suggest that it would not, and could not, remain able to reject or accept future extensions under the second part of subsection (3), as it has done in the past. That is a real, effective and genuine safe-guard, and it does not deserve to be dismissed in the way in which some right hon. and hon. Members have sought.
It is on the basis that that safeguard would be removed if the Amendment were accepted that I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The Solicitor-General has a ponderous dexterity which is impressive and practically anaesthetising in its effect upon the Committee. However, it is necessary for hon. Members to remain wide awake when the hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking, because the effect of his words frequently is different from the sense that they convey when read the following day in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We shall have to read in HANSARD tomorrow precisely what he has said in his intervention.
This is a fundamental debate about the nature of the Bill. When it is said that the Clause is one of definition, that is an inadequate description. The Clause describes itself as a Clause of interpretation, and that is rather different. It is one thing to define. It is quite another to interpret. All that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said indicates that he, too, regards this as an interpreting Clause which sets the scene and says precisely what the situation is.
The reason why I feel doubtful about the words of the Solicitor-General in this context is that sometimes he gives the impression of meaning one thing while saying another. When he last spoke on this subject he discussed the effects of the treaties and for the first time came into the open. He said about treaties:
They are as such unamendable by Parliament, which does not mean that the Bill itself is unamendable."—[OFFCAL REPORT, 6th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1155.]
That is a distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman drew clearly for the first time. He distinguished between the treaties themselves and the Bill, and he suggested that the treaties were unamendable but that the Bill was amendable.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman said on 20th January was very different—[Interruption.] I am sorry to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be leaving the Chamber. It is unfortunate that he should be out of the Chamber when I am about to accuse him of misleading right hon. and hon. Members. On 20th January, replying to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), the Solicitor-General said:
My hon. and learned Friend is wrong, however, when he argues as a matter of principle that the legislation to implement a treaty allows no scope for amendment, because the House will be familiar with much legislation implementing other treaties of more or less importance in the past, all of which has been capable of amendment … ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 794.]
The intention of the Solicitor-General then quite clearly was to give the impression that the treaties themselves and not merely the legislation were capable of amendment. He was telling us at that stage that if we decided to enact legislation which rendered any part of a treaty inoperable, that treaty could be changed. He therefore appears to have changed

his tune. This is why I am sorry that the Solicitor-General is not present to agree that he has changed his tune.
On 28th January the hon. and learned Gentleman was suggesting to the House that the treaties could not only be thrown out in toto but could be changed in detail, whereas today he is telling us that the treaties cannot be changed but the legislation can. I believe that the Solicitor-General has intentionally or unintentionally deceived the House of Commons on this matter and I am sorry that he is not here to tell us whether this was so.
The treaties which we are questioning in the Amendment are complex and I would remind the Committee that the three European Communities are governed today by their founding treaties. The Treaty of Paris set up the Coal and Steel Community which entered into force in August, 1952. I recall this particularly because I travelled to Europe then to look at the new organisation. I formed a very bad impression of it which has lasted ever since. I never did like it and never shall. It seemed to me to set Western Europe on a wrong path which it has never left. Two treaties were then signed in Rome on 25th March, 1957, which established the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community which came into being on 1st January, 1958.
We are seeking to question those three treaties and their consequences. This is desirable for those of us who have not been so close to legislation as some of the occupants of the two Front Benches. The entry into force of those three treaties during January, 1966, was delayed by a constitutional deadlock between France and the other members of the Community. The treaties did not eventually come into effect until 1st July, 1967. It is intended that this development shall be completed by a fusion of the treaties to form a single Community. The treaties have been developing and, as the Solicitor-General said, this development will continue. Some would welcome this and would like to move towards federalism and others, including hon. Members on the Government side, would regard the development of federalism as undesirable. On this side of the Committee, I believe that the development of federalism would


be entirely wrong at this time and in Western European society and we should avoid it.
The Rome Treaty provides that the Parliament and the Council set up under the treaty are to decide upon provisions for elections by direct universal suffrage by a uniform system. Therefore, if we ratify these provisions we will condition the future activity of Parliament here. This worries many of us. By passing this legislation in its present form without amendment, to what degree are we seeking to tie the hands of future Governments?
When entering upon a process we must have regard to the end of the process. We are seeking to establish a body which might openly, without any qualification, seek to establish a European Parliament and European court. This might be tolerable and thinkable if we were talking about Europe. However, although we glibly use the word "Europe we must remember that we are talking about a community of six Western European countries, not Europe.
The question which we have to decide is whether the setting up of an organisation which has this effect is appropriate to give the Crown, which in effect is the Government, the power, by Order in Council, to declare
that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined".
The question which I wanted to put to the Solicitor-General, which he would not allow me to put, is one to which I believe I know the answer. However, I should have liked the answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman in order to be absolutely sure about it. Clause 1(4) states that the word "treaty"
includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement.
Does this mean any directive issued by the Council? I think that it does. Therefore, the words
or annex to a treaty
ratify not only the major treaties themselves, but the directives of the Council, of which there are a large number.
I want to refer to some of those directives. The first directive to which I should like to draw attention seeks to

harmonise the legislation of member States concerning turnover taxes. This legislation, as all Community legislation, stems from the Treaty of Rome, and all legislation in the Treaty of Rome stems from one of the articles in the original treaty.
The reason why we seek to delete subsection (3) is that it seems to establish far too much power in the Executive. For example, Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome, from which this directive stems, states that
The Commission shall consider how to further the interests of the common market by harmonising the legislation of the various Member States concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation, including compensatory measures in respect of trade between Member States.
Arising from that article, the Council of the European Economic Community, on 11th April, 1967, said:
Having regard to … Articles 99 and 100"—
of the Treaty of Rome—
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission; Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament; Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee;
Whereas the main objective of the Treaty is to establish, within the framework of an economic union, a common market within which there is healthy competition and whose characteristics are similar to those of a domestic market".
There are two pages of statements which I will spare the Committee although I am reluctant to do so. If I were concerned to drag out the time instead of hastening the business of the Committee, I should read them all. Indeed, perhaps I ought to do so, but I shall take it for granted that some Members will have read the directive to which I am referring. After all that, we come to the phrase "has adopted this directive".
9.0 p.m.
Article 1 states:
Member States shall replace their present system of turnover taxes by the common system of value added tax defined in Article 2.
It seems, therefore, that we are bound to introduce a value-added tax, and the Government have accepted this by declaring their intention to do so. They really had no choice in the matter. They therefore propose to introduce a value-added


tax and they say they are not conditioned as to the level of this tax. They say they had to propose it but they do not tell us that the next stage, which is already determined and forecast, is that the value-added tax itself shall be harmonised; not only the shape of the tax but the amounts shall gradually be harmonised. There will thus be removed from the House of Commons the power to determine not only what sort of taxation we have but also the level of it. That is a power I would have thought the House of Commons would never surrender. I find it particularly astounding that a Conservative Government of all Governments are prepared to surrender to an assembly outside this country the power to decide not only the nature but also the rates of our taxation. This seems to me to be fundamental, because in altering the nature of taxation we alter not only the economic but also the social nature of the country.
That is why we on this side of the Committee have a fundamental objection to this sort of Clause, because it means, as far as we are concerned, that we surrender to an outside Community decisions on how much taxation our citizenry shall bear. It means also that we surrender to a body outside this country the determination of the levels between poor and rich within our own country. We therefore surrender the Dower to determine the economic structure of our own country, which is fundamental to the power which ought always to rest with the elected representatives of the people. For what else did people elect us to the House of Commons if not to exercise this sort of function? It was not to hand over to a body over which they have no power or influence whatsoever the question of what sort of taxation they should bear.
It is no wonder that some hon. Members on the Government side do not go along with their own Government on this proposition. It is fundamentally objectionable, sometimes for quite different reasons. The reasons why some hon. Members opposite take grave exception to the legislation which we are seeking to amend are different from the reasons which some of us on this side have for objecting to it but they are none the less worthy. As an hon. Gentleman opposite said, if he had to control taxation within

the House of Commons he might introduce quite different taxation from that which I would introduce, hut that does not affect the fact that we have in common the wish to have the control here. That is the point we have in common—the desire, the determination indeed, that we shall continue to exercise the rightful control of the affairs of this country in this Chamber.

Mr. Marten: I should like to say that as far as I am concerned I have not objected to value-added tax provided it is under control of this Parliament. After all, our Government have given an assurance that it will not be imposed on food. What I object to is that when it becomes harmonised, as I understand it will, the harmonisation may involve placing the tax on food. I object to that, for two reasons: we will have given away that amount of sovereignty and we will have gone back on a promise we made.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has underlined correctly the progressive nature of this. We are not taking a single step but we are jumping on an escalator which has a momentum of its own, and once we are on it we are inevitably carried in that direction which will make a number of hon. Members on the Goverment side wish that they were able to get off. It will not be easy to get off the escalator once we are on it.
There seems to be some ray of hope about the turnover tax. Here we have the Third Council Directive of the European Communities. This one came along a little later. It also refers to Articles 99 and 100. Everything done here becomes part of the law of our land, whether we know it or not, whether we have seen it or not. But there seems to be some possibility of deferment.
This directive says that Italy and Belgium made known to the Commission that they could not comply with the date of 1st January, 1970, for the introduction of value-added tax and that therefore the date of January, 1972, had been substituted. They got a reprieve for a couple of years. It might be possible to hold the axe off our necks for a couple of years or so. The E.E.C. could pass a special directive to give us a chance. That is the extent of the humiliation to which the House of Commons will be reduced—


going to the Common Market to ask for a favour.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend is wrong. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already informed me in writing that those directives which have been agreed by the Council of Ministers must be accepted by us in toto. None is amendable or alterable in any shape or form. There are some 2,500 that we know of. There are still 1,000 that we do not know of and about 1,500 which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has never even seen. But we must accept them in toto, and we cannot alter them.

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend is right. I may inadvertently have misled him. I was trying to say not that we do not have to accept everything that has happened, but that in future we might be able to defer this or that for six months if we could not afford it. But that is a very small crumb of comfort and is no reason for not pressing the Amendment to the full.
Some parts of this legislation are very obscure. I have concluded that the Government do not understand the legislation themselves. I do not profess to be an expert on the Bill but I know a little about one part of it. It is so complex that one can study only one part effectively. I have tried to study the consequences of this on the film industry, with which I am particularly concerned. It is no exaggeration to say that those consequences will be disastrous.
What did the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry say on Second Reading? He said:
We thus comply with the obligation imposed on all member States by directives requiring the removal of restrictions on the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the film industry.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Member will not anticipate too fully the contents of Clause 8.

Mr. Jenkins: I will not, Miss Harvie Anderson. I am about to leave the point. I would just like to complete the quotation, which is this:
The practical effect of these changes will in fact be small."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 446.]
Nothing could be further from the truth. The practical effect of these changes may

be really disastrous. We have to make some changes in Clause 8, whether they are fundamental or not. I do not know how they will be regarded. We must make some changes in Clause 8 if we are to preserve the British film industry. I take your warning, Miss Harvie Anderson, and will not pursue the matter further now.
Having said that, one other thing I would like to say is that we have some decisions which have not been translated: we have some that have not been published and some that have not been translated. I wonder how we are to get an effective translation because we are concerned here with all this legislation which is already in existence, which will come into force and which we cannot avoid. How are we to know—not everybody speaks French—what we are taking on? I wonder whether it would be in order for me to read the essential part of this French version of the decision which has been made, in rather bad French, so that it could go into the record and a translation might be made of it.

The First Deputy Chairman: I do not think it would be permissible to read it in French.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. Is it not permissible for my hon. Friend, who has respectfully pointed out that his French is not so good, to give his own translation of it? If he were to read his own translation, that might be accepted by the Official Reporters as a good translation. It would help me because his French is much better than mine, because mine is non-existent.

The First Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman likes to give his own translation, that would be in order.

Mr. Jenkins: That would be a risk I really could not take. If a translation is made of a French version of a Community treaty, that translation is the only thing we have. It becomes the nearest thing we have to an official translation. I will not undertake the responsibility of being the nearest thing there is to an official translator. It would be quite improper for me to do that. This document exists, and it is important in my view that we have an official English translation of it. I would, therefore,


merely like to give it its title, if that would be in order, and to request the Government to provide a translation of this document so that we know what we are talking about. I warn the Committee, as indeed Winston Churchill gave a warning on another occasion, "Prenez garde, jeparle francais".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: With great respect, Miss Harvie Anderson, I am raising a serious point of order. It is the custom, is it not, when an hon. Member quotes from a document, that the Official Reporters often ask him to send up the notes from which he has quoted? Is it not possible that my hon. Friend may well be asked by the Official Reporters to submit his documents and that the Official Reporters could and would assist the House of Commons by giving to us in the OFFICIAL REPORT a translation from the documents which the hon. Member will no doubt submit to them?

The First Deputy Chairman: No such service as the hon. Gentleman suggests is provided by that department in the House.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. English: Further to the point of order. I accept, Miss Harvie Anderson, that it has always been the practice in the House of Commons not to quote documents in languages other than English. But you will recollect that since the last edition of "Erskine May" was published two Bills have been before the House, one of which I believe was passed and is now an Act of Parliament, which had attached and incorporated into them a Schedule in French, which is the official text for the purposes of the English courts. It is not the English text that is the official text but the French text. I submit, therefore, that there are two precise precedents for a complete reversal of the former rule of the House.
I do not ask for your opinion immediately, Miss Harvie Anderson, but I hope that the Chair generally will consider the point because it will arise later on the Bill. Rather than have an off-the-cuff answer now, I should prefer it if you took the point back and communed with your colleagues to produce an answer later.
For example, as has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wolver-

hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and as I have repeatedly mentioned, there are documents which I have asked the Leader of the House to have translated, but as he has refused to have them translated, and did so last Thursday on the Floor of the House in response to a question from me, I should like to quote them. I would entirely accept the Chair's ruling on whether they are relevant. I believe that they are absolutely relevant. It will be necessary to quote them in the only language in which they are available. I am quite prepared to give a rough translation, but I cannot be responsible personally, nor can any hon. Member, for giving an authoritative translation of not merely ordinary French but legal French. For the benefit of the Committee, we must be able to quote them in the original language.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he has put his point of order. It is my recollection that he is quite correct in saying that there have been such Schedules to Bills which have been passed. It remains the point from the Chair that hon. Members should address the Committee in the generally understandable English language. I shall look further into the point the hon. Member has raised, although he will understand that I can give no undertaking now.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order. This is a serious point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson, because if, in the event, we are faced with these documents or similar documents in various languages, those of us who have very little knowledge of those languages will have no idea what is contained in them. Therefore, in considering this matter, should we not consider having a number of official translators available for the benefit of hon. Members so that if a document of this kind requires to be discussed, the official translator, with the permission of the Committee, could perhaps be brought in to translate the document as required by an hon. Member for the benefit of all hon. Members?
I am being serious about this matter. In the Council of Europe I remember that the matter was simply handled. One had earphones and a number of different translators were in a box somewhere and


gave, as a delegate was speaking, a simultaneous translation. We understood what was being said. In this Committee we are not in that fortunate position. As we shall have to consider on many occasions during the passage of the Bill documents which are published only in French, Italian or some other language of which many of us have very little knowledge, we ought to have official translators brought to the Committee and made available to hon. Members when we need documents of this kind translated.

The First Deputy Chairman: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman and recognise it as a serious point. There are, perhaps, others to whom it would be more appropriate to address this matter. The Services Committee will read what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that that Committee will take any appropriate action.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Purely for the purpose of identification, I shall read as best I can the title and the first two lines of the document:

"DROIT D'EST A BLISSEMENT, LIBRE PRESTA T ION DES SERVICES, DROIT DES SOCIETES

Cinématographie

24. La Commission a adopté, le 27 juillet 1971, puis transmis au Conseil, deux propositions de directives—dans le domaine de la cinématographie—"

That, I think, is sufficient to identify the document. Having done so may I return to the matter we are concerned with here. The Bill is a collection of decisions which have been made and in the Amendment we are questioning the Government's right to present us with a packet and to say to us "Accept it or reject it as a whole"

I sincerely hope, with the help of hon. Members on the Government side, that the Committee will decide not on the question of the Common Market and whether we are for or against it but as a matter of principle that we must not be faced with a fait accompli of this sort.

Mr. Anthony Fell: This afternoon——

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order. I promised my hon. Friend the Member

for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that I would give way to him. Would you allow me to do so, Miss Harvie Anderson?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has always declared that he is honourably connected with British Actors Equity, which is a very fine trade union. Have the Government at any time discussed with Equity or any of the trade unions in the cinematographic industry aspects of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers? Has Equity had an opportunity of discussing this and putting its view to the Government?

Mr. Jenkins: There has been no such discussion, but in order to enable the Government to begin rectification of that situation I propose to lay this document on the Table.

The First Deputy Chairman: I think the hon. Member knows that he cannot do that but no doubt his words will have been well noted.

Mr. W. Baxter: I am in an unfortunate position, Miss Harvie Anderson, in that I am unable to understand French. My hon. Friend has stated that he has a document and he has referred to it in the French language. Does this presuppose that it has been accepted by Parliament that French is now an accepted official language of the House of Commons?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member will have heard me allow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) to quote the title but no more.

Mr. Will Griffiths: The Committee is getting into very serious difficulty. You are in charge of order, Miss Harvie Anderson, and you have allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) to quote from the document which he has told us——

The First Deputy Chairman: With respect, that is just what I did not do.

Mr. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. If you had been here and heard——

The First Deputy Chairman: The Chair was here.

Mr. Griffiths: I beg your pardon, Miss Harvie Anderson, I was carried away by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), who certainly has not been here. Presumably my hon. Friend the Member for Putney was in order in addressing the Committee in the way he did or you would have asked him to resume his seat. You allowed him to make his speech. He told the Committee that the directive to which he was referring was only available in a language other than English. This resulted in a number of points of order being raised, and my recollection is that you said that this was a matter which you felt might be dealt with by the Services Committee. If in the course of our proceedings during the rest of the evening and tomorrow a situation like this keeps recurring, as well it may, then surely it is not good enough to say that the matter might be referred at some future date to the Services Committee. It is slightly more urgent than that. Perhaps the Chairman of Ways and Means might be consulted at any earlier stage this evening.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have undertaken to go into this further, but I have made clear what the present position is.

Mr. Fell: I do not wish to detain the Committee very long. We listened yesterday to a great speech by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), and to day we have heard a number of important speeches, one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), one from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and, not least, one from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster).
It is all very well for us to listen to such great speeches by highly practised and well-versed Members, many of them expert legal minds, giving their interpretation of what is to happen when we enter Europe. The speeches have been made in connection with the Amendments in the widest sense. As an ordinary back bencher who happens to be opposed to entry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am grateful to those hon. Members who so kindly agree that I am an ordinary back bencher—I want to put my interpretation on the words. [Interruption.]
I am stalling a bit, because I had hoped that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich might come into the Chamber, as it was about his speech that I wanted to speak. I greatly admired it. It was one of the first speeches by a pro-Marketeer that really spoke the truth. It told hon. Members where he stood. [Interruption.] If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) wants me to give way, I shall be delighted. I shall listen carefully for any further little quivers from his sedentary position, even though they put me off what I am trying to say a little.
I understood my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich to say that it is not true that we are giving away our sovereignty but that it certainly is true that we are giving away some of it. Fine. But he did not go far enough in saying what would happen when he admitted that certain decisions would be taken away from the House and be made in other countries in Europe. Where he did not go far enough—although he did admit it in part and was more honest than anyone else—was in describing the amount of weakening that would be sustained by this House when we move the centre of decisions from here to Brussels or wherever.
[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the chair]
9.30 p.m.
It must weaken it. It is all very well for hon. Members to say it will not, but, as everyone knows, once the emphasis is taken away from this place and our constituents come to us about matters we cannot take up anything affecting them whether it be taxation, transport, steel prices, or anything. The moment we are divorced by——

Mr. Cooper: Has my hon. Friend ever heard of the United Nations?

Mr. Fell: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—I have never had an argument with him and I will not start now—he knows that the United Nations does no deal with our taxation, transport or steel prices.

Sir John Rodgers: It is true that the United Nations does not deal with such things, but it is equally true that the imposition of sanctions in


Rhodesia costs this country something like £160 million a year, and yet we cannot argue about it here.

Mr. Fell: My slate is clean. I never believed in the United Nations and said so from the word "Go". I shall incur your displeasure, Sir Robert, if I go on in this way, but if I am asked to vote for sanctions against Rhodesia this year I shall not be able to do so.
What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich was saying in his brilliant speech was "Yes I am a European". He used those words. He said, "I believe we should do this even though it will mean a reduction of sovereignty for the British Parliament".

Col. Sir Tufton Beamish: On a point of order, Sir Robert. My hon. Friend in opening his speech asked whether it would be in order to speak about the Amendment. Would it be in order?

The Chairman: I was rather hoping the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were coming to a close.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Is it not offensive that an hon. Member who has not been here all day, who does not know what has transpired—he has probably been in Europe—should try to correct an hon. Member who is replying to part of the debate?

The Chairman: I think it may very likely annoy the hon. Member but it is not a point of order for me. There are so many things to annoy me that I have to be careful.

Mr. Fell: It will be in the recollection of occupants of the Chair and of hon. Members who have been here—there are one or two who, significantly, have not been here all the time—that everything I have said, except for my answer to the interruption from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers)—has been concerned with matters which have been discussed this afternoon by hon. Members. I ask you, Sir Robert, not to pull me up in the few more minutes for which I intend to speak. If hon. Members interrupt me, I am in the habit of giving way, particularly in Com-

mittee, but if I have no more interruptions I shall speak for only another two or three minutes.
There is a plain difference, in the words of my hon. learned and straightforward Friend the Member for Northwich between his clean, straight and honest view of the pro-Marketeer and what I hope is the honest and straight view of some anti-Marketeers. I cannot speak for other anti-Marketeers, but my view has been quite straight and clean.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy greatly disappointed me a little while ago when he was less than fair in answering an interjection from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He referred to the many regulations which we have to accept and on which we shall not be able to vote individually——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Non-amendable.

Mr. Fell: Non-amendable. My right hon. and learned Friend denied this. He did not get to his feet to deny it, but he was wagging his head as vigorously as he could without actually breaking it off.

Mr. Rippon: I do not know what my hon. Friend is talking about. I have not intervened in the sense that he is suggesting. I do not know what incident he refers to. He is obviously completely muddled.

Mr. Fell: This is my complaint. My right hon. and learned Friend has the nerve to get up at the Box and deny something that happened five or ten minutes ago. He quite clearly was saying that he disagreed. I am arguing that we have been misled by many of the pro-Marketeers, and not least by those on the Government Front Bench, during these debates.

Mr. Rippon: I resent very much what my hon. Friend is saying. We had a debate yesterday with which the House dealt in a satisfactory way. We have made clear time after time to right hon. and hon. Members, ever since the application was made in May, 1967, the extent to which we would have to accept Community law in this country. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, we have presented


an honest Bill. It may be a stark Bill, a harsh Bill, and some hon. Members may not like it, but it is an honest Bill, and it is clear and straightforward.

Mr. Fell: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for allowing me to intervene again. He may not believe he has done so, but I assure him that he has apparently misled those of us who have opposed entry to the Common Market throughout. Right from the beginning he has told stories that we have not credited and have not believed. It is no use his saying to us now that everything is lovely in the garden and that the Government have told the truth from the word "go", because we just do not believe it.

Sir T. Beamish: Will my hon. Friend give an example of the way in which he has been misled by my right hon. and learned Friend, or is this just a lot of hot air?

Mr. Fell: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish)—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will behave himself.

Mr. Fell: My hon. and gallant Friend is very angry with me about this, but he has been very angry with me ever since he stopped speaking to me when the negotiations over the Common Market started. That was approximately 10 years ago. I could give many examples, but I shall not be side-tracked. I will give just one. Of course we were misled about the Sugar Agreement. We were misled to the extent that we did not believe that an agreement which was really workable had been made. We thought there had been a runner.

Sir T. Beamish: In view of the fact that every producing country heavily dependent on the export of Commonwealth sugar has accepted the agreement, what is my hon. Friend talking about?

Mr. Fell: I am sorry that I have got under the skin so obviously of my hon. and gallant Friend. He of course has had experience of this—[Interruption.] If he wants me to answer a question I will do so. He should have had fairly good experience of this for all the time that he

has spent on it for the last 18 months. He is perfectly entitled to his view, as I am to mine. The view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich is honest. At the same time, let no one tell me that my hon. and gallant Friend has not attempted to mislead the country about Britain going into the Common Market. I have heard him say things on television which caused me to say, "I wish to goodness I had been there to answer him. I could have torn it into shreds".—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I think we should leave this exchange now and concentrate on the Amendment. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) assured me that he was anxious to come to his peroration.

Mr. Fell: Of course you were absolutely right, Sir Robert, to call me to order. I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend for the fact that I almost lost my temper with him as well. That I should not like to do because I would sink to that level.
This is an unfortunate Bill, and before we have finished with it I fear that it will break up many friendships and do much harm. The only reason for my intervention is to say that I admire and have the greatest respect for those pro-Common Marketers who lay their cards on the table and say, in the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich, "I am a pro-European. I know Parliament is going to be affected by it, but I am still pro-Europe and will go on fighting for it." At the same time I wish some other pro-Europeans who are less frank would give us the benefit of the doubt of believing sincerely in what we say, that this will weaken Parliament and that some of us whose main reason for being against joining is our fear that part of the power of Parliament will be lost. Whatever anyone may say, it is quite impossible to convince any of us that this will not be so, particularly after the brilliant speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and others who have spoken in the last couple of days.
I apologise for taking this amount of the Committee's time since originally I had no intention of doing so. However, I thought it important that at least one person from this side of the House should


put a very ordinary view as one who, for a long time, has believed that the people of Britain are to be found here in this House of Commons. There is nothing more natural than the reflection given in this House of the views of the people of Britain on the Common Market.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Shore: I shall not interfere with the argument which has developed between the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and his hon. and gallant Friend the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish). Frankly, I am not in the least surprised that there should be a heightening of temperature when we turn to a serious discussion what is involved in this Bill and in joining the Common Market. We can congratulate ourselves on the way in which the long discussion of this important matter has been conducted so far and the very high quality and seriousness of the arguments which have been deployed.
I have always assumed that a Committee stage on a Bill such as this should lead hon. Members to turn their minds seriously to the matters which are before them. One thing which is agreed by us all is that this is a Bill of supreme importance to the country and to our future, and that we should not do less than to give careful and deep consideration to matters as they come before us. We would not be worthy to be in this place if we were not prepared to do that. I accept that now and then a cry of rage and pain will ring out in this Chamber, because we are all deeply involved in these matters. However, we should not treat issues frivolous or simply be content to score points. We want to unravel the provisions of the Bill.
The Solicitor-General at an ungodly hour last Thursday morning said:
the Committee has now moved on to the meat and substance of our proceedings".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 698.]
He was referring to Amendments No. 49 and No. 99, which are now before the Committee. At that time I would have been surprised if he had realised just how much meat and substance there was on those two Amendments. Anybody who has sat here during the many hours which

have passed during this afternoon and this evening and who has listened to the arguments deployed on both sides of the Committee will not fail to agree that we have been dealing with very serious issues indeed.
We have put down these Amendments with two purposes in mind. One of our purposes is to probe the Government's intentions. We said that this had turned into a reconnaissance party into the unknown territory of Clause 1, to find out exactly what was there, if we could, and to report to the House and the country on what we had discovered. I shall come back to that, because there is a lot in it and I do not think we have yet been able to carry out the exploration in depth of Clause 1 to discover what treaties are packaged within it about which we really need to know.
We also had the purpose in Amendment No. 99 of dismantling the machinery of Clause 1(3) whereby future treaties can be agreed and, having been agreed, imposed upon us. So the double purpose of these Amendments was to explore and carry out our first reconnaissance into the territory of the treaties and then to dismantle what we then thought and now know to be a very dangerous and threatening piece of treaty machinery which could have very great consequences for this country and for the future of this Parliament.
We asked the Solicitor-General to answer some of the questions about the treaties referred to in Clause 1. We remember his original attempt to answer them in the early hours of last Thursday morning. We have now had the benefit of hearing my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), who gave us a brilliant exposition of the various packages brought together in the Clause. It is very surprising that nowhere in the Bill have the Government thought fit to spell out what exactly are the Community treaties to which we are acceding. That is a very strange omission. We know there are the treaties listed in the Schedule, and it contains the original treaties plus certain consequential treaties of some importance.
Then there is the mysterious paragraph 7, an open-ended rag-bag. We do not know what is in it. There could be any


number of treaties to be brought under paragraph 7 of Part I of the First Schedule. It certainly has not been made clear to me what are the treaties to be inserted into paragraph 7. If it is a simple matter and if we know what those treaties are, I cannot understand why the Government did not think it right to list the treaties concerned in an extended Schedule. We must therefore come to the conclusion that there is something of a mystery about the definition of "treaty" in paragraph 7.
Again, there is the whole uncertainty in Clause 1(4) about what exactly, for the purposes of this Clause and this paragraph, the definition of "a treaty" is. Clearly, it is very important for us to know how "a treaty" is to be defined, what kind of international agreement is to be considered as a treaty and, specifically, as a Community treaty for the purposes of this Bill and this Clause. In a rather striking phrase, the Solicitor-General spoke of the Community "treaty complex". I must say that it remains a complex for me in more senses than one.
We can say so far that we have been able to carry out a reconnaisance by no means wholly to our satisfaction. We still feel that, even in terms of the treaties which have already been agreed and to which we are apparently acceding, we are left in great uncertainty about what they are and even what their names are. That is the first important part of our discussion.
But, rightly, it is the second focus of our discussion which is of even greater concern. I refer to the problem of looking at the machinery by which, in this Bill, future treaties are to be added to the existing Community treaties and made operative in this country. It is on the machinery for adding future treaties to those which exist already that the discussion has rightly centred.
As we were told, there are two broad categories of future treaties. There are those which will be made by and entered into by the Communities. They are treaties which will be made not with the active or direct participation of this country but perhaps by the Community

in our name and the names of others. Those treaties made by the Community as a whole will have a considerable effect upon us and upon our interests and connections in other parts of the world.
A remarkable feature of tonight's discussion, and one which perhaps reflects our difficulties in earlier debates in opening up these matters, is how little illustration there has been. We have talked about packages of treaties, but, with one or two exceptions, no one has been able to refer to the content of a single treaty. However, it is the content of the treaties and not the categories of treaties which is of concern to us, to the nation and to all those associated with us in different parts of the world. I make that point specifically in relation to the power of the Community to make treaties which will affect us but of which this country is not a signatory.
A number of examples could be obtained simply by looking through the 10 volumes of treaties which were published two or three weeks ago. I refer to the pre-accession treaties, many of which have been signed by the Community on behalf of its members. As we shall see, they cover matters of considerable importance. I could imagine, for example, that simply by exercising its power over making commercial treaties. and operating a common external tariff, the Community could in certain circumstances recommend tariff policies for the Community as a whole which were harshly discriminatory against, for example, the British Commonwealth. That is possible, just as they could against North America.
We assume and hope that the result of further trade negotiations in the world will be to reduce tariffs, but there are those who take a pessimistic view of the future and think in terms of tariffs and protection devices being re-erected. If that were the case, then we could find ourselves——

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though

opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Shore: I will not, even with the temptation of the Prime Minister sitting opposite me, attempt to repeat the remarks I have already made in that part of my speech which I have just delivered. I can only say that, whatever other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may think, I believe that it would have been a very good thing indeed for the Prime Minister to have been able to be here during the course of the day for he would have heard arguments and words of very serious substance that might have given him, with his immense enthusiasm and obsession with Europe, reason to think more carefully——

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Robert. It is quite obvious that certain hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have come from a certain place where they have possibly been enjoying themselves. I hope that we are going to have real order in the Committee and not the behaviour we are having at the present moment.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is only one Member of this Committee who has to keep order. That is the person here, and I will keep order.

Mr. Heffer: Well, keep it.

Mr. James Hill: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. For the information of the hon. Member, I have just come down from one of the hardest working Committees——

The Chairman: Order. There is no need to pursue this subject any further.

Mr. Shore: In spite of the change in the atmosphere of the Committee since I first rose to address it some 20 minutes ago, I will try to resume the argument which we were developing. I think it is

very important for us to get this straight and to see whether we have understood properly the points that have been put to us earlier.
10.15 p.m.
I was saying that there were two kinds of future treaty which could affect us and which are covered by Clause 1(3). The first category is those treaties which the Community itself is empowered to enter into with other States or organisations and which, although we are not a direct signatory, could greatly affect us. I referred to possible changes in the trade strategy in the Communities which could have a considerable and adverse effect on British interests in Commonwealth countries and on North America as a whole, on the assumption, that is, that trade strategy developed in a protectionist manner.
If this were to happen—the House will agree that substantial British and British-Allied interests would be involved—under the first part of subsection (3), what we have come to call Part A, the treaty entered into by the Community which would have these large trade effects would be known to the House only in as much as the treaty would be declared formally. There would be no question of its being discussed or of anyone being able to move against it. That is not an altogether reassuring prospect.
It is when we consider the other treaties, those which this country could expect to be involved in, that we face very important matters. It would be useful to have some information from the Government. It is all very well to talk of future treaties as though they were an abstract group of treaties which may or may not be signed, but there is already in the pipeline a number of matters which could be treaties or agreements or which could subsequently be declared to be treaties. This, after all. is the procedure by which the Communities have developed their activities in the past and will presumably do so in the future.
There has been a considerable growth in the last 12 years in the area of affairs for which the Community has become responsible. There was, for example, the treaty at the beginning of 1970 which


gave the Community control of its own resources. Clearly, treaties of this kind are to be expected; and this would be the way in which the frontiers of the Community would be advanced as it moved towards what it and others hope will be an ever closer economic and political union.
So there can be no question about the importance of these treaties. If the people who are so keen for the success of the Communities are correct, and they become successful, then inevitably that success will be recorded in further agreements and treaties which will carry forward the process of economic union. That is what is envisaged. It therefore matters very much indeed what machinery the Bill provides for extending the Community powers and how that machinery would affect the powers of the House and Parliament.
We are not talking about anything that is the least bit abstract. I have very much in mind—and I am sure the Treasury Front Bench has, too—the fact that almost within the next year or two years the effort of the Communities to establish an economic and monetary union will probably come to fruition. Indeed, they have advanced a considerable way towards that already, and it is the leading topic of current discussion in Western Europe today. Had the Prime Minister been able to receive his guest, President Pompidou, a few weeks ago he would undoubtedly have included this as one of the major topics at Chequers. Presumably he will return to this a little later this month.
The status of the economic and monetary union, as I understand it, still falls short of what one might call an international agreement, a Community agreement or a Community treaty. The resolution—it is an agreed resolution of the Council—is something just short of a decision. I am not sure how far short of a decision it is. Perhaps as we get used to the terminology of the Community we can get these matters a little clearer in our minds. At any rate, there is little doubt that it is the declared aim and purpose, and it is not far beyond the reach of agreement of those in the Community today, to establish an economic and monetary union.
If they establish that economic and monetary union—and I refer now to

phrases which have been used by all those who have been serious about European affairs in recent years—they say that an economic and monetary union would be the biggest thing that has happened in Western Europe since the signing of the Rome Treaty. They say that the implications of an economic and monetary union leading to a common control—monetary policies, exchange rate policies, unemployment policies, growth policies, the regional policies of the member countries—would be a major advance of the frontiers of the Communities, an advance of that frontier into the existing sovereignty of the member States. I would have thought that was not seriously in debate.
My goodness, what a difference there is in the proceedings which it is now contemplated Parliament should employ to subject this new Rome Treaty, as it were the second Rome Treaty, to scrutiny under this Bill, compared even with those which are available to us now as we consider the matter of whether we should join the Community or not! The Prime Minister and his colleagues rather boast of the opportunities they have given to Parliament to consider the question of joining the Common Market. We think the opportunities have been wholly inadequate compared with the scale, complexity and importance of the subject. Nevertheless, we put that to one side.
There have at least been many days of serious debate. We have just now begun the process of serious scrutiny of this Bill. What is contemplated here for the second Rome Treaty? What was the Solicitor-General's phrase? He disagreed with what his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said about the parliamentary frailty of scrutiny and control. "It is not a bit frail", said the Solicitor-General; "look what you can do under Clause 1(3). That says that for Britain, as it were, to accept a new Rome Treaty in the years ahead, in perhaps two years' time if the Prime Minister gets his way, you have actually got to get through the House of Commons and the other place an affirmative Resolution". That is not frail, he says; that is a real opportunity for Parliament to do its job, for democracy to work, for the nation's will to focus in a serious way on the matter in hand.
It is unbelievably frivolous for the Government to say that this is a serious piece of machinery designed to make Parliament effective. It is a serious piece of machinery for shovelling away the rights of the House of Commons and of British democracy. It is an engine for their destruction. If we are in a situation in which all that a Government in the future have to do to make agreements on matters of this immense importance with the other Community countries is to have an affirmative Resolution approved, I cannot see that there is any possibility of resistance left to the most profound changes in the whole of our way of life, in the making of law in this country and in all matters of great importance to us and to the nation. That is of very great importance indeed.
The right hon. Gentleman used a phrase which, I think, will live beyond this debate. He said that this amounts to prerogative legislation. That is what it is, the exercise of prerogative to sign the treaty, and then the treaty, under the Bill, will be fed in and declared to be a Community treaty. Then all the rights of Parliament, all that for centuries people in this country have fought to achieve, is reduced to a debate on an affirmative Motion. That is all that is left.
If the Prime Minister in beginning to take an interest in our affairs, that is remarkable. We shall be delighted to hear a good deal more from him. I wish he would spend more time with us in a serious examination of what he is doing to the House of Commons, to our democracy and to the country.
In conclusion, on this first debate, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have just begun. I am certain beyond doubt that the explanations we have had on the first two Clauses are explanations that must feed the anxiety of the House of Commons and of the country, and we shall certainly vote for our Amendments tonight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. English: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: No

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. English: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Is it not the fact, Sir Robert, that only three back benchers on this side of the Committee have had the opportunity to speak upon the Amendment upon which we are now dividing? If this restriction of debate is to continue, Sir Robert, it will be a very difficult situation for back-bench Members upon this or any other side of the Committee.

The Chairman: I have taken very good care to fortify myself on precedents. Would the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) remove his hat, please? As I am sure he will realise, what I have done in granting the Closure now is well within the precedents, by miles, on everything that has been done for many years.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: (seated and covered): Is it not the custom of the Chair to accept the Motion for the Closure only if it feels that there has been an adequate debate and that all points of view have been adequately expressed? I am sure it was not intentional, Sir Robert, but could I point out, for further consideration, that not one member of the Liberal Party has had an opportunity to speak although its official spokesman rose to be heard. At least he should be given the opportunity notwithstanding that other hon. Members on both sides have not been called to speak. Is it not a negation of democracy for the Liberal Party not to be given an opportunity to contribute to the debate?

The Chairman: The duty of the Chair in all matters connected with the Closure is quite clear. The Chair has to decide whether the time given for the discussion of any particular Motion before the Committee can be considered in all respects to be reasonable and adequate. That is how I arrived at my decision.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 237, Noes 209

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Balniel, Lord
Haselhurst, Alan
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hicks, Robert
Pardoe, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Boscawen, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Bowden, Andrew
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Holt, Miss Mary
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J




Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Hornsby-Smith Rt Hn Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Buck, Antony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Channon, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher





Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Coombs, Derek
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Kitson, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry



Curran, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)



d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James

Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dean, Paul
Longden, Gilbert



Divon, Piers
Loveridge John
Simeons, Charles


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Luce, R. N.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren Martin
Spence, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Iain



McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Steel, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fidler, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)




Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
Money, Ernie
Temple, John M.


Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tilney, John


Gummer, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony




Trew, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Tugendhat, Christopher
Ward, Dame Irene
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Warren, Kenneth
Woodnutt, Mark


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Weatherill, Bernard
Worsley, Marcus


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Waddington, David
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Younger, Hn. George


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue and 


Wall, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Allen, Scholefield
Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Milne, Edward


Ashley, Jack
Gourlay, Harry
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Baxter, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)




Huckfield, Leslie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)



Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest G.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)





Janner, Greville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
John, Brynmor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roper, John


Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Sandelson, Nevilie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David





Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James



de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dempsey, James
Lee Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Sillars, James


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Duffy, A. E. P
Lomas, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCartney, Hugh
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


English. Michael
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Ewing, Henry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff W.)


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tomney, Frank


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsden, F.
Varley, Eric G.


Foley, Maurice
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George







Watkins, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. John Golding and Mr. Donald Coleman


Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



Whitlcok, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[10.28 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Astor, John
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hicks, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Higgins, Terence L.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L


Benyon, W.
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Quennell, Miss J. M


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Raison, Timothy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boscawen, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Hornby, Richard
Redmond, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bryan, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Channon, Paul




Chapman Sydney
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chataway Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Churchill, W. S.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Kirk, Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Coombs, Derek
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooper, A. E.
Knox, David
Sharples, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Critchley, Julian
Le Merchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Curran, Charles
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Soref, Harold


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Luce, R. N.
Spence, John


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen



Dixon, Piers
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McMaster Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Stokes, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fidler, Michael
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Tilney, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G
Moate, Roger
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gardner, Edward
Money, Ernie
Trew, Peter


Gibson-watt, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C)
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gower Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David


Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grylls, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Gummer, J. Selwyn
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene



Normanton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nott, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John
Wiggin, Jerry







Wilkinson, John
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterton, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Michael Jopling.


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.



Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Younger, Hn. George





NOES


Abse, Leo
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Baxter, William
Harper, Joseph
Pardoe, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Biffen, John
Horam, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G.


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Irvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Richard, Ivor


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)




Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Short.Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunnmgnam, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kaufman, Gerald
Sillars, James


Davidson, Authur
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Small, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Latham, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Steel, David


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strang, Gavin


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Swain, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, Tom
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Harry
Marsden, F.
Wallace, George


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund



Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Foley, Maurice
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Molloy, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. John Goldling.

Question accordingly agreed to

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 216 Noes 235.

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[10.39 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Baxter, William
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Biffen, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Bishop, E. S.
Horam, John
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Body, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prescott, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Reed, D. (Sedgefieid)


Cant, R. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Richard, Ivor


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cronin, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Small, William


Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Lambie, David
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Latham, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Sutcliffe, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swain, Thomas


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, Tom
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
Marsden, F.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wallace, George


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Watkins, David


Fell, Anthony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, Rn. Hn. E.
Meacher, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foot, Michael
Moate, Roger
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Forrester, John
Molloy, William



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. John Golding.


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Roland





NOES


Adley, Robert
Harrison, Col, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hastings, Stephen
Pounder, Rafton


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Astor, John
Heseltine, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Atkins, Humphrey
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Awdry, Daniel
Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hiley, Joseph
Raison, Timothy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Benyon, W.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Blaker, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boscawen, Robert
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bowden, Andrew
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
James, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Channon, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kirk, Peter
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kitson, Timothy
Simeons, Charles


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Coombs, Derek
Lane, David
Soref, Harold


Cooper, A. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Critchley, Julian
Lioyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Crowder, F. P.
Loveridge, John
Steel, David


Curran, Charles
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
MacArthur, Ian
Stokes, John


Dean, Paul
McCrindle, R. A.
Tapsell, Peter


Dixon, Piers
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mc Nair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Moddan, Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maude, Angus
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fidler, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Trew, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fortesue, Tim
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)



Foster, Sir John
Money, Ernie
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fox, Marcus
Monks Mrs. Connie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Galbraith Hn. T. G.
Manro, Hector
Waddington, David


Gardner, Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ward, Dame Irene



Morrison, Charles
Warren, Kenneth


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Grieve, Percy
Normanton, Tom
Wilkinsin, John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nott John
Winterton, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N)
Worsley, Marcus


Hall-John (Wycombe)
Page Graham (Crosby)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page John (Harrow W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Bernard Wcatherill and


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Michal Jobling.

Question accordingly negatived

The Chairman: Amendment No. 96——

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I wish to raise, Sir Robert, the point of order which I mentioned earlier this afternoon and which you suggested it would be more appropriate for me to raise after we had discussed the Amendment on which we have just voted and before coming to the next Amendment.
The Amendment which we have just discussed, and which everyone who heard the debate will accept was one of major significance, was selected at the last moment. Had we debated it on Wednesday night, we should have had to debate this important matter without any notice whatever. I think everyone in the Committee would agree that that would have been a procedure which would not be for the benefit of the Committee. Perhaps I could put to you Sir Robert, a point about selection, of course not to question your selection, but to help us in the way you have already helped on this question.
One of the difficulties we have had with this Bill in particular has been that a distinction has been drawn more than in most other Bills about Amendments which are excluded by your Ruling because they are not within the scope of the Bill and those which are selected. You helped us particularly by sending a letter, which was referred to in the previous debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), indicating the reason why some Amendments were not selected. This is a matter of some importance to us. While we are most grateful for the consideration which you have given to the further Amendments which we have submitted to Clause 1, several of which now appear on your list of selected Amendments, we should also be grateful if you could indicate by some appropriate method the reason for the exclusion of the others which we have put down.
They are in particular, Nos. 153, 155, 157, and 158 and 161. If you could indicate the grounds on which they are excluded, whether it is because they are considered to be beyond the scope of the Bill or not selected, that would assist us in framing necessary Amendments to

cover the points which we desire to cover. That process has enabled us to put down Amendments to other parts of Clause 1. It would be of considerable assistance if you could help us in this way.

The Chairman: I am grateful for the kindly way in which the hon. Member has raised this point. I cannot give an answer straight away, but I shall take an early opportunity to give what I hope will be satisfaction.

Mr. Deakins: May I raise an entirely separate point of order? I gave you notice yesterday, Sir Robert, of my intention to raise this point on the grouping of Amendments. Yesterday we had your selection of Amendment No. 96 with Amendments Nos. 81, 82, 28, 2 and 83. You were good enough, perhaps on advice and not merely in response to my letter, to separate from that list Nos. 28, 2 and 83, now shown separately on your provisional selection. You have now added a further three Amendments, so that if this grouping goes ahead we shall be discussing no fewer than six Amendments together.
I respectifully suggest, because you said the other day that you were open to suggestions from the Committee on the way in which Amendments should be taken, that a more convenient grouping and one more conducive to orderly discussion would be to take No. 96 with Nos. 162, 147 and 163 and Nos. 81 and 82 separately. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 in the name of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) are concerned with removing virtually the whole of lines 5, 6, 7 and 8 on page 2, whereas Amendment No. 97 deals with a procedure for treaties involving a Resolution of Parliament which on the face of it has nothing to do with Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. Amendments Nos. 162, 163 and 147 specify an enactment by Parliament for certain procedures. I submit that four of these Amendments should be taken together, and that Nos. 81 and 82, having no immediate bearing on the others, should be separated.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins). You are aware


that had you called Amendment No. 96 I was about to rise on a point of order to request that a separate Division should be permitted by you on Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 since they are substantially different. I hope, Sir, that you will be able to give consideration to this point.

The Chairman: I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) have put this matter. I went into the situation very carefully indeed this morning and came to the conclusion that the best interests of the Committee as a whole would be served by handling the matter in the way in which I have. I am prepared to consider allowing a separate Division on Amendment No. 81—in fact, if pressed, I might even consider another. However, on the whole I believe it will be better for the selection of Amendments to remain as I have made it.

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 2, line 5, after and', insert:
'subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
I understand, Sir Robert, that you have selected the following Amendments to be taken with this Amendment: Amendment No. 81, in page 2, line 5, leave out from 'into' to 'as' in line 7.
Amendment No. 82, in page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 162, in line 14, after ' but ', insert:
' subject to subsection (5) hereof'.
Amendment No. 147, in line 18, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 20 and insert:
'enacted by Parliament'.
Amendment No. 163, in line 23, at end add:
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) hereof a treaty which changes the general law of the United Kingdom or imposes financial obligations on Her Majesty's subjects shall not be regarded as one of the Community treaties unless accepted and approved by an Act of Parliament.
[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]
11.0 p.m.
The Amendment that I move lays down the machinery set out in the linked Amendments. Since, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said, Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 have no bearing on the other four, I do not propose to refer to them at all.
The machinery for parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty is laid down in Clauses 1(2) and 1(3). The need for a revised machinery other than that in the Bill is heightened by the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for North-wich (Sir J. Foster) said on Amendment No. 49 that he recognised that fresh machinery should be established by this House for the scrutiny of legislation and for the scrutiny of treaties, and so on, which come from the Community. He was saying that the machinery laid down by the Government is insufficient adequately to scrutinise the treaties.
During that debate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General raised the Ansiminic case, and said that if any Order in Council were ultra vires it could be challenged in the courts. I would be glad if he would deal with that case in his reply. What we have to consider here is the right of a subject to challenge the use of prerogative by the Sovereign. I understand, and it has been reinforced by many of the contributions in the debate, that the use of prerogative is really an unchallengeable right of the Sovereign, and the Ansiminic case in particular dealt with an inferior tribunal, namely, an administrative tribunal. It is quite clear that the High Court can review any decisions of an administrative, inferior tribunal, but it is by no means as certain as the Solicitor-General sought to imply that that court could review or declare ultra vires the exercise by the Sovereign of the prerogative laid down under Clause 1(3).
The Solicitor-General has said that under Clause 1(3) we can discuss any treaty which is entered into by the United Kingdom, either as an ancillary treaty or as a party with the Communities, or upon its own behalf, but that we could not review, and it would not be open to us to scrutinize, any legislation entered into by any of the Communities without any of the member States. This is important, because it points the way to the future.
If we are to have the full-hearted consent which has been spoken of so freely in connection with this legislation this is a continuing duty. It applies not only to the point which we have reached but to all future legislation, so that at all stages during the continuance of British membership of the E.E.C.—if we are misguided enough to go through with that—people should be reassured that there is the utmost publicity for the documents to which we are assenting on behalf of the nation and the greatest control by this Parliament commensurate with membership of the E.E.C. As it stands, the only mechanism of parliamentary control is that contained in Clause 1(3) of the Bill, and it gives only partial cover, and cover only so far as the affirmative Resolution procedure is concerned with one and a half hours.
We have now to examine the documents which have already been entered into by the Community, and we see a number of examples where the Community has entered into treaties with other countries without any member State being a party to the treaty. I refer in particular to Vol. 8, Part I of "Treaties and Related Instruments", page 147, the agreement which set up an association between the E.E.C. and the Tunisian Republic. That was done by the Council of the European Economic Community of the one part and the Tunisian Government of the other part and merely signed by Gustav Thorn and Jean Rey on behalf of the Community. It was not an association or treaty to which any member State was a party. Similarly, if we look further back in the same volume, page 107, we see a commercial agreement between the European Economic Community and the Imperial Government of Iran—another example of the E.E.C.'s entering into a treaty without any member State being a party to it.
I am not sure about the next example I wanted to give and should be grateful if whoever answers would deal with it. In Volume II, page 13, there is a decision of the Council, contained in "Treaties and Related Instruments", regarding the association of overseas territories and countries with the European Economic Community. Again, no individual country was party to that agreement.
It is true that in the treaties with Greece and Turkey individual countries were parties, but the first point is that there is no necessity for individual countries to be parties to an agreement between the Community and another State; and the second point is that in those treaties entered into directly between the Communities and other States there are provisions such as import quotas, production quotas and so on which deliberately and definitely affect individual States.
As I understand the position and the formula which the Solicitor-General has laid down, none of those treaties—or neither of the specific treaties and the probable third—which I have quoted would be the subject of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever, notwithstanding the fact that there may be in one or more of the articles of a commercial agreement provisions as to quantity or as to imports and quotas which might affect Britain in this regard. It is clear that this legislation could, and probably will, affect Britain in future. It is one aspect of these treaties of which there can be no scrutiny by this House under the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Deakins: Would my hon. Friend agree that his third example is by far the most important affecting the treaty-making powers of the European Communities? In Volume II of "Treaties and Related Instruments" we have the decision of the Communities on the association of overseas countries and territories, and on page 35 we are told that
from the Decision, the governments of Surinam and the Dutch Antilles shall discharge the obligations arising out of that Decision".
whereas the point of this decision is that it relates to territories which used to be colonial territories of member States of the Communities. It must be a sign of the times for us that any agreement made on behalf of or with the former colonial territories of any Community member is made only by the Community and not by the Community with the former colonial territory concerned.

Mr. John: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point is heightened by the statement on page 29 of that volume, which indicates that not only the amount of aid—the millions of units of account—but the manner of aid


which we give to overseas territories will not be scrutinised by us.
I understood that the establishment of an effective means of parliamentary control over this legislative programme, with the need to take account of the changed parliamentary circumstances, was common ground to all. I recollect the Chancellor of the Duchy saying that there would be various means—by Select Committees and so on—of scrutinising these matters.
Amendment No. 96 would, if passed, save the right hon. and learned Gentleman a great deal of time, for it suggests that all those treaties which are made by the Communities without the member States having been parties to the decision shall be the subject of affirmative Resolution in this Parliament.
A number of advantages would flow from this course. For example, the negative Resolution procedure would be inappropriate in this context; if treaties to which we have not been a party affect us greatly, it is our duty to scrutinise them; positive approval by us is preferable to acquiescence on the part of the House of Commons.
One disadvantage which the Patronage Secretary will appreciate is the fact that a time limit of one-and-a-half hours would apply, which would not mean the Government becoming involved in closure or timetable Motions. Although one-and-a-half hours is not much, it is better than nothing. In this connection, I remind the Solicitor-General of what the Chancellor of the Duchy said about there being sufficient time for Parliament to debate these issues. Indeed, if he was not boasting, he certainly took pride in the amount of time which the Government had allowed for debating the decision to accede to the E.E.C.
If it was right to grant that amount of time—and I say that that was the minimum time necessary to consider it—it shows up in stark relief the claim of the Solicitor-General that an important treaty can be disposed of in an hour and a half and we still have time for a cup of tea before an early evening. It is not good enough, and I ask the House to support this first Amendment in that spirit.
The second series of Amendments, particularly Nos. 163 and 147, deals

with the other treaties, treaties which are at present covered by affirmative Resolution procedure. When the United Kingdom is party to a treaty, whether on its own account or as a member of the Community, or an ancillary treaty, it is not good enough to say that we should be able to pass it by affirmative Resolution procedure. The least that should happen is that it should come before the House in the proper way and be enacted in the proper way.
Amendment No. 147 calls, substantially for the deletion of the affirmative Resolution procedure and seeks that any such treaty as is mentioned in Clause 1(3) should be enacted by Parliament.
If the Government are as proud of this Bill as they claim, although at times they have tried to stifle discussion on the detailed proposals, they are concealing their pride in its birth very well. If they are as proud as they claim to be, they will not object to the open and full examination that the House should give such treaties for they affect us not only by our membership of the Community, but directly because we are parties to the treaties.
Amendment No. 162 is more circumspect. It would add a new subsection (5) and says that where a treaty changes the general law of the country or imposes financial obligations, it should be subject to Act of Parliament. These are minimum requirements which will enable the House of Commons and the people of Britain in future to keep track and to keep the spotlight of scrutiny on these various measures to which Her Majesty's Government of whatever party accede on our behalf.
This is the minimum that we should require: the minimum that we as Parliamentarians, if at all conscious of history and the way in which our present rights have been obtained, should insist upon. All hon. and right hon. Members, whether they agree in principle with Common Market entry or not, will join in saying that if Common Market entry is to be effected adequate means should be established by the House of Commons for controlling and scrutinising the treaties to which we shall accede in future. I hope the House will support these Amendments.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Sir Alfred, may I ask what is the intended


form of debate? Earlier this evening there was an important statement from the Solicitor-General which it is highly desirable that hon. Members should be able to study before the main part of the debate takes place. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend apparently intends himself to make an intervention. But would it be possible, without too great inappropriateness on a point of order, to inquire what is the prospective form of debate this evening?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: It is not for me to determine the form in which the Committee will feel it most convenient to deal with this batch of Amendments, but it seems reasonable that we should make a start on the discussion of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has made a valid point about the need to study some of the matters which have been raised today. No doubt he wishes to study what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said. For our part we shall study with care the valid points which have been made on both sides and which may require further discussion and elucidation as we go on with our consideration of Clause 1.
I hoped that it might be helpful if I rose now to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), especially those in relation to future Community treaties—that is to say, the treaties entered into without the member States.
As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 96 and, perhaps, Amendment No. 28 is to require affirmative Resolutions, whereas Amendment No. 81 would exclude them from the Bill completely. I thought it might be helpful to the Committee if, by way of opening our discussion, I indicated some of the reasons why the procedure in Clause 1(3) does not apply to future treaties which any of the Communities enter into without the member States.
The reason is that, under Article 228 of the E.E.C. Treaty, the member States are automatically bound by treaties concluded by the Community. That is an advance commitment which forms an integral part of our membership of the

Communities, and it is known in advance to Parliament. There is no similar advance commitment binding us to treaties entered into by member States.
It has been made clear in our earlier discussions that the Communities have, we must accept, certain expressly conferred powers under the treaty to conclude treaties themselves. Those powers are contained in Articles 111, 113 and 238, subject to the procedures in Articles 114 and 228. In fact, Article 111 is now spent because it related to the original transitional period of the Community

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that treaties which the Communities enter into with third party States are automatically binding on member States according to the articles of the Treaty of Rome. Does that mean that, should the Crown not seek to specify under Clause 1(3) that one of these treaties is a Community treaty, the rights and obligations arising under that treaty are still binding under Clause 2(1)?

Mr. Rippon: That is correct. It may be helpful to the discussion——

Mr. Jay: rose——

Mr. Rippon: I must continue. I should like to be allowed to explain, without too much interruption, the position as we undersand it. I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members have anxieties about some aspects of this matter which we must try to move.
Article 113, which applies from the end of the transitional period, provides for the negotiation of trade agreements with third countries in pursuance of the common commercial policy of the Community. Where such agreements need to be negotiated, the Commission is required to make recommendations to the Council, which then authorises the Commission to open the necessary negotiations. The Commission conducts the negotiations in consultation with a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the Commission in this task and within the framework of such directives as the Council may issue. Under the treaty the agreement has to be concluded by the Council acting on a qualified majority. I am told, however, that all agreements so far concluded have been agreed by unanimity.
I am setting this forward to indicate how the Community works. As the Leader of the Opposition used to explain, it is how the Community works in practice that really provides the greatest safeguard of all.
Article 238 provides for association agreements with a third country, with a union of States or with an international organisation. Those agreements may establish
an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action, and special procedures.
Those agreements are concluded by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Assembly. An example given by the hon. Member for Pontypridd was the association agreement with Tunisia.
It will be of interest to the Committee to know that there are provisions for consultation with the European Parliament. When the Community concludes an association agreement under Article 238 of the treaty, consultation with the European Parliament is obligatory, and there is a special procedure for this. Even in cases where we thought that consultation was not required under the treaty, nevertheless, in practice, consultation has been taking place. Though agreements under Article 114 do not require formal consultation, in practice that is what has happened.
I can understand the anxieties which have been expressed about the fact that provision for an affirmative Order in Council in Clause 1(3) does not apply to these treaties entered into by the Community. That was the substance of the argument very fairly put forward by the hon. Member for Pontypridd.
Since our treaty obligations will call for us to be automatically bound by treaties entered into by the Communities, their binding effect for member States cannot be dependent upon action by national Parliaments. Since they will be automatically binding upon us, it follows that our law must, in advance, be such as to enable us to give effect to any rights and obligations arising for the United Kingdom under them. Thus it is necessary, as the Bill provides, for these treaties to be automatically within the definition of treaties for the purposes of the Bill without the need for any further

parliamentary procedure after their conclusion.
That may seem to some right hon. and hon. Members as being in some way strange. However, it is not so strange. Looking at the list of existing Community treaties in this category, we see that many of them are of very limited interest to this country and this Parliament. For example, the commercial agreement of 14th October, 1963, with Iran is an agreement under which the Community reduces its tariffs on certain Iranian products—for example, grapes and caviar. We should bear in mind that this country can now conclude many treaties which require no legislation. For example, those treaties require no legislation which may be implemented by orders under existing powers in the Import Duties Act. That is somehing which we do ourselves now, without any concern, although of course we could, if we so wished, change cur procedures. This helps to put the matter in the right perspective.
I will not refer again to the observations of the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, on 8th May, 1967, but they could not have been clearer. It has always been understood from the beginning that there would be an area of treaty-making which would fall within the powers of the Community in the field specifically defined in the articles of the treaty.

Mr. John: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not want to give a misleading impression of the Iranian Agreement. Articles 3 and 4 provide for the examination of the possibilities of harmonious broadening of trade with the Community and the setting up of a mixed committee to examine it. So it is a matter not merely of tariff reduction but of a trade initiative with a particular country as well.

Mr. Rippon: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman makes that point. It shows how harmless the treaty was. The idea that one should be particularly concerned about arrangements made frequently between Governments that committees should be set up to consider how they should expand trade with each other in a sense makes the point that, just as there are now many treaties which we enter into which require no legislation at all because they cover particular matters


of trade and so forth which have been well understood for a long time, so these treaties of the Community in strictly limited fields are circumscribed not only by the articles of the treaty themselves but also by the procedures which the Community has established.
I know that hon. Members on both sides will recollect that the Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister, went out of his way time and again to explain that, whereas if one looks at certain of the provisions of the treaty literally one might have anxieties, one should look not only at the statute law but at the common law and the practice which has developed. I hope that I have explained a little of the way in which the Community, by its procedures, ensures that treaties of this kind are not entered into without anyone knowing about them.
As for the ad hoc committee, I said on Second Reading that the Government believed that there was a need for the House to have special arrangements under which it would be apprised of draft regulations and directives, and that the ad hoc committee would consider the most suitable arrangements. I did not specifically refer then to treaties, but clearly the committee would wish to consider the scope of parliamentary consideration in respect of treaties as in other matters. It is in that sort of way that we can be confident that, in practice, some of the anxieties which have been expressed will not prove too great.

11.30 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: At present the House has the Ponsonby rule, under which all treaties have to be brought to the House of Commons, with opportunity for debate within 21 days. Am I to understand from my right hon. and learned Friend that when this treaty becomes law the Ponsonby rule will still be applied, so that the House of Commons will be able to debate the treaties, as we are doing now, or is he saying that it can be done only by a committee that he intends to set up?

Mr. Rippon: The whole question of procedure in dealing with these matters will be in the terms of reference, as it were, of the ad hoc committee, so that we can consider the most appropriate procedure. For the purposes of the discussion we are having tonight about the

application of Community treaties, we have to accept that the House of Commons cannot get away from the position stated as long ago as May, 1967, that there is this field, which I have defined, a limited but definite field, in which the Community has power, under the treaties, which successive Governments have said they accept together with everything that flows from them, to make these treaties.
I have tried to indicate the nature of the treaties the Community makes, the fields they cover, the reason why, in practice, there is no great ground for anxiety, the procedures which the Community adopts to control the Commission's negotiations, the degree of discussion there is within the framework of the European Parliament, the degree of public knowledge there would be of the nature of these treaties and the fact that we can consider how we can ensure by our procedures that there is an opportunity for these matters to be considered here. But once the treaty is made, we have to accept its obligation upon us.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a statement that will horrify all quarters. We shall have time tomorrow to discuss the whole question and all the implications of what he has said and what is involved in the Amendments. On one special aspect of the matter, although not the most important, I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say something now. When he puts forward some of the weight about what is to be done to protect us on his ad hoc committee and places reliance on that, does he not realise that it is a most extraordinary situation in which the House of Commons is being placed when we are told that it is the ad hoc committee, which has not even been set up and which will not have reported, presumably, whilst we are still in the Committee stage, and of the form of which we have no knowledge, which is to have some control of these matters?
Is not that an extraordinary state of affairs, especially as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already told us in almost the same breath—and as we are told in almost every breath that Ministers utter—that we have known about these matters all along, that the Government and everyone have known about them for years? Yet the proposals for the ad hoc committee, which is to play an


increasing part in all the protections the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims, come only at the last minute. The more the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the ad hoc committee in this way, the more it appears to be a face-saving arrangement, spatchcocked into the Bill in order to try to block up—if I have not mixed about six metaphors already—the holes that have become more apparent.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying now makes the situation far worse. He really ought to think it over. In view of this statement, the best thing he can do is to think about this again. He talks about our thinking about what is said. He should think about it himself and come before the Committee tomorrow with a considered statement on what he is now saying.

Mr. Rippon: I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather the ad hoc committee did not consider the matter. It is right that I should clear up any ambiguity in my speech on Second Reading. It is not essential that the ad hoc committee should do so, but it is not unreasonable that it should do so either. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to accept it, and certainly does not want to accept what the Leader of the Opposition said in May 1967; the hon. Gentleman used not to agree with him in those days. But he must accept that from the outset of the negotiations—and no one has ever quibbled about this—we have known, as have all the members of the Cabinet who made the application, that Article 228 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community states:
Where this Treaty provides for the conclusion of agreements between the Community and one or more States or an international organisation, such agreements shall be negotiated by the Commission.
It went on to say:
Agreements concluded under these conditions shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States.
From the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, on 8th May, 1967, the position has been inescapable. I quite understand that there are many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides to whom that proposition has never been acceptable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirks and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) have been quite consistent about this. To be fair, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has never accepted this. On the contrary, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has accepted it at one time and certainly the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the Labour Government did so. It is no good pretending this is something which the Government have just thought up at the last minute or have in any way hidden from the House of Commons. From the outset the Labour Government and the present Government said that, subject to negotiation of the terms on the matters on which we wanted transitional or other arrangements, we accepted the treaties and all that had flowed from them.
I have said that we must also look at the position in practice, at the sort of treaties which are concluded by the Community and the way in which they can and are being scrutinised not only within the institutions of the Community, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, but how we will have plenty of time to look at them ourselves. As I said on Second Reading, the Government remain accountable to the House of Commons for their actions.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Resign.

Mr. Jay: Is it not rather scandalous that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refuses to answer any questions put to him? If, as I understood him to say, any treaties made by the Communities with a third party are automatically and directly binding on this country, what is added to the situation by the provision in the first part of subsection (3) that if an Order in Council declares that the treaty specified in the order is regarded as one of the Community treaties, it will be conclusive? Are these words without any real effect?

Mr. Rippon: The position is that there is always room for argument as to whether particular agreements or conclusions reached legally constitute a treaty. It is for the convenience of everyone that there should be some declaratory provision.


But my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made perfectly clear in his speeches the limitations on the second part of the proviso. He also made clear that the affirmative Resolution procedure could not cover Community treaties which are binding automatically, but it could cover the treaties to which the member States, including the United Kingdom, were themselves parties.

Mr. Jay: Are the words without any real effect?

Mr. Rippon: If the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will look at what I said yesterday, he will see that I have answered this question.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Does the process of declaration, which involves the provision of Order in Council, merely involve the laying of the order before Parliament without debate or discussion or is the process more elaborate than that? If the question was answered when I was attending the Committee of Privileges I am sorry, but I would like enlightenment on the matter.

Mr. Rippon: I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged on other and important duties and so did not hear my hon. and learned Friend's answer on that point. It is simply a straightforward laying of the Order in Council.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

Dr. Gilbert: I should like first to address myself both to the interventions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and to the reply of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is the case, it is beyond me why we need not only the first part of subsection (3) but also the second part. It seems to me to be superfluous.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced an interesting concept, and he was at great pains to quote frequently my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we should look not just at the text of the treaties but at the common law and practice that obtains in the Common Market with respect to Community law. We are missing one extremely important document. We have most of the regulations and treaties rele-

vant to Community practice, but we do not have any indication of what proportion of those various articles of law is in effect in the Community. It has been made the excuse from the Government Front Bench from time to time, though we have not heard so much of it since the Bill has been before us, that we do not need to bother too much about Community law because in the last resort we can always break that law. It is said that it does not matter very much, because when it becomes oppressive member States are only too happy to break it themselves.
If that were the sort of case on which the Government still rested—and it is very germane to the general thesis that the right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced—we should know precisely those aspects of Community law that are not being enforced now. It would be very useful to have a document that laid out the information systematically for the benefit of the Committee so that we could know exactly which parts of the treaties are being disregarded by the member States, apparently so far with impunity.
A document does exist with that information. It was referred to in the February issue of the bulletin put out in this country by the information service of the European Community. It says that the Commission has issued a report dealing with the violations of the Treaty of Rome as they have been clearly identified. The number of violations apparently amounts to 136, of which 82 are positively established and 54 are only presumed. A recent Commission report estimated that the greatest number of infringements was in the agricultural sector, followed by the common transport policy. This is an extremely significant document. This information is vital if we are to know what parts of the treaties which will play such an important part in our lives are able to be breached with impunity.
11.45 p.m.
According to the bulletin which I have quoted, every member State is in some respect in breach of its treaty obligations. It would be interesting to know precisely which aspects of these treaties the Government intend to breach in the fullness of time.

Mr. Deakins: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister's statement following his discussions with President Pompidou during the penultimate period of negotiations last summer forecast that this country and France were fully agreed on a breach of one of the major provisions of the Treaty of Rome—I cannot remember the number of the article—namely, that which allows majority voting in the Council of Ministers? They jointly put their heads together and issued a public statement before the debate in the House of Commons in October that we would disregard that provision of what we are told is a fundamental Community treaty.

Dr. Gilbert I: am much obliged to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of these matters is far more profound than my own. I hope that in due course the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will address himself to that point. It is interesting to see that the range of matters which are subject to breaches of Community obligations by member States extends over a great many other areas besides agriculture and transport policy.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member has twice referred to the common transport policy. What common transport policy has the Community got?

Dr. Gilbert: That is a good question. All I know is that the bulletin put out by the European Information Service refers to a common transport policy, so presumably it knows what it is talking about even if I do not, because I do not pretend to know what the common transport policy is. My source of information is the official bulletin put out by the European Information Service. If so passionate a pro-European as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) does not know anything about it——

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Gentleman is confusing the intention of a common policy with the actual possession of such a policy.

Dr. Gilbert: That is an interesting distinction. All I can say is that I have read in the bulletin about a breach of an intended common transport policy. I do not know how one can breach an intended policy. It says quite clearly:
The greatest number of infringements were in the agricultural sector followed by the common transport policy.

If someone who has followed these matters as closely as the only Liberal representative here, and we must thereby infer that he is the keenest of the keen Liberals, does not know, how should simple souls like the rest of us be expected to know?
It is not only in the agricultural sector and the intended or actual common transport policy that member States are committing breaches and are in dereliction of their duty to Community law. I understand that Belgium has still not applied a 1965 directive on the marketing of pharmaceutical products. We understand that Belgium, Luxembourg and France do not carry out directives allowing tourists to bring back certain quantities of goods free of value-added tax from partner States and France and Luxembourg have not complied with all the directives according freedom of establishment. I have no doubt that the list will be a great deal longer. This is all that is available in this summary.

Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the basis of the Government's argument for entry? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster argued in his last speech that it did not matter what was in the Bill or the treaties—it was the practice that counted—and he went back to 1967 in arguing that point. Some of the strongest arguments over the past two years from the Dispatch Box have been that it did not matter because people ignored it anyway. Perhaps he is now trying to say that the Bill does not matter. This is the whole theory behind the Bill.

Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is the point I have been attempting to make. If the case of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is that the law as it will affect us is not what is laid down in statutes, regulations, directives and so on, but the common practice, we need to know exactly what that common practice is and where we can get away with breaches of it with impunity; but the Government will not say that. When pressed to say what they intend to ignore, the Government will not admit to anything. They cannot expect us to believe that they will be much purer in their behaviour than are the Six initial member States.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins)


challenged the federalists and said he thought they would all emerge. My view is that they will not emerge but will get further and further into hiding and will not at any time appear in their true colours.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that the effect of subsection (3), taking it with what goes before, is that for future law-making purposes we shall be dealing with questions of the Royal Prerogative, and we shall no longer have legislative power in the House of Commons over a vast range of matters. What is not clear to many hon. Members is the extent to which we shall be sacrificing our legislative rights. The whole of our Budget-making process will inexorably become subject to the provisions of Clause 1(3). I exaggerate slightly—not the whole of our Budget-making procedures, but all those which will be subordinate to the harmonisation intentions of the Community with respect to V.A.T., corporation tax, social security taxes and benefits and tariff changes. All these will eventually become subject to the subsections of Clause 1 which refer to the superiority of Community treaties over the law-making procedures of our country.
I shall not attempt to delay the Committee longer on this point tonight. I hope to catch the Chairman's eye at some more favourable time to speak on these Amendments. Some of the things that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said with his usual blandness this evening were among the most startling I have heard since I became a Member. Although that has been a short time. I have heard some very startling things.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
It seems to me that we have done better on this occasion than on previous occasions and it seems convenient for the Committee to consider the implications of what has been said.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

DISABLED PEOPLE (CAPITAL GRANTS)

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: One of the major gaps in our services for the disabled, as I believe the evidence makes clear, is the lack of any adequate provision of capital grants for those handicapped persons who cannot obtain normal or sheltered employment.
From the Government's own survey, entitled, "The Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain", there are known to be at least 1¼ million seriously handicapped persons in the country today of whom there are several thousands, particularly persons with professional or executive experience, who probably will never be able to get a regular job again and yet who have scarce skills which could be used to the community's gain and for their own self-respect and independence if only they could obtain initial capital.
Evidence of unmet need in this respect is derived from at least three sources. One is the disproportionate percentage of persons on the local authorities' disablement registers compared with the general population who have been subject to prolonged unemployment of a semi-permanent nature. Another indicator is the collection of cases on the files of various bodies, such as the Central Council for the Disabled, in which pleas for assistance of this kind have been made regularly in vain.
A third index of unmet need is the small, yet constant and gathering trickle of requests over the years to the Department of Health and Social Security asking for the commutation of pension rights into a capital lump sum. The size of this flow is indicated by the huge total of 45,000 applications for commutation received by the Department or its predecessors from disabled "other rank" pensioners over the 18-year period from 1921 to 1938 as revealed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department in his most helpful letter to me of 31st August last year.
Although no doubt it would have been inappropriate to accede to a number of these requests, the figures suggest a large pool of genuine demand running into a few tens of thousands of cases today


where the provision of capital facilities would fill an important, albeit a minority, gap in our present services for the disabled.
I am well aware that the State has to a degree sought to meet its responsibilities in this area through providing capital grants to severely disabled persons under Section 15 of the 1944 Disabled Persons Act to help them, and I quote "to undertake work on their own account". While I readily acknowledge that the spirit of the Act is right, it seems that in practice the Act has never attained more than a marginal significance.
According to the Department's own statistics in the Answer given to me yesterday, for which I am grateful, there has been an average of only six grants a year from 1951 to 1971. In some years the grants have been as few as only two or three. Moreover, the average size of grant has been extremely small, ranging from £123 to £250. Last year, for example, apparently six awards were granted with an average size of £215. It seems clear from this evidence that both the numerical coverage of this service and the minuteness of the grants were quite unsuited to the scale of need that remains to be met. Furthermore, there has been no development of the central and regional machinery which would be required to gain the necessary knowledge of the range of openings available, the necessary experience for the more confident assessment of the projects brought forward and the necessary expertness in the screening of applicants.
I appreciate that Government assistance in the past took another form which has now been rejected as unsatisfactory. This was the right to commutation between the two world wars whereby a war disabled pensioner was permitted to exchange his future rights for a pension based on his life expectancy in exchange for a capital sum to enable him to set up in business. This practice was discontinued in September 1939. not only on grounds of economy, but also, to quote the Minister
…there was evidence that many pensioners had sustained serious loss particularly in connection with business ventures.
Ironically enough, the evidence of the Minister in that same letter points to the opposite conclusion. According to that letter, of 48 business grants made in

1928–29 and analysed in 1935, after six years at the depth of the depression, there was still a going concern operating in more than half the cases.
Since the normal rate of retail business failures is such that between a third and a half of businesses are forced to close within two years of their start, I believe this evidence clearly suggests that the disabled, so far from lacking the necessary business expertise, have it in full measure provided they can obtain the initial capital and provided applicants are properly screened.
Since the 1944 Act has clearly never been used, and perhaps was never intended, to initiate grants for viable business enterprises as a whole, and since the Ministry refuses to consider reintroducing the right of commutation—where, I would agree, there are very real risks—I would nevertheless hope that the case for partial commutation, say 50 per cent., or selective commutation, in certain carefully approved cases, would not be automatically ruled out for further consideration at this stage.
I hasten to add that this is not my purpose tonight. What I now wish to propose is that a special fund should be set up to provide finance to establish businesseses for disabled persons who are very unlikely to find either normal or sheltered employment again and who have been carefully vetted on strict business lines. I emphasise that this is not intended to be a social welfare proposal. There are other ways of meeting that kind of need.
This is meant to be a proposal explicitly along commercial lines. I would suggest that the trustees of the fund might in the first year allot 50 grants of an average size of about £5,000, which would mean a total annual expenditure of £25,000. Since this would be essentially experimental and need not be developed if it was unsuccessful, this is an extremely small cost when set against the size of the Employment and Social Security budgets.
The trustees would explore the question of whether, given Government backing, which is crucial, finance houses like the banks, whilst not willing to initiate loans in the private market to disabled persons because of the degree of unsecured risk, might nevertheless be


willing to top up the grant on the basis of some collateral. That would be an important extra way of supplementing the total resources that might be made available in these cases.
Although the awards would not, I would envisage, be loans, there should also be arrangements whereby if the profits exceeded a certain level some repayment of the original grant, either in whole or in part, might be expected in normal circumstances, but obviously this would have to be more carefully regulated than I can spell out at this stage. Repayment would both provide confirmation for the disabled person that he had finally achieved total independence and restore capital to the fund.
The persons who might be expected to gain most from these proposals would, I believe, be the younger disabled persons, who, despite their handicaps, do not want a life of dependence and are desperately looking for a real challenge within their powers. The excellent Government survey which I have already quoted has indicated that there are some 19,000 severely handicapped persons aged between 16 and 30, and suitable applicants from among this group might be expected initially to receive very careful consideration.
At the same time, the most handicapped men of the last war, who are now in their fifties, should not be overlooked. The Minister in his letter to me of August last argued that it was perhaps too late for men of that age to embark on new ventures. A disabled constituent of mine, who I am delighted to say is present tonight in the Strangers' Gallery, commented significantly in a letter to me:
Did the men, or should I say boys, in 1939 think of risks? Not likely. They did a duty all over the world. Because we reach 50, do you honestly think we are finished and not worth a small risk from our Government? How little you know us.
This illustrates far better than all my calculated arguments the spirit and determination of the disabled to overcome their handicaps and face the challenge that confronts us all. It demonstrates the desperate desire of the disabled to become producers rather than consumers; to become taxpayers rather than tax-users.
I earnestly hope that the Government will give this plea the most serious con-

sideration, even if not immediately and not in full. I sincerely hope that the Government will find it possible to reveal a definite and practicable intention to implement this proposal, at least in some measure in the spirit in which it is made.

12.11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I wish at the outset to tell the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that there may be some merit in his argument that my Department's scheme of capital grants to help severely disabled people set up their own small businesses might be somewhat expanded.
Before returning to this point, I will make some general background observations which are relevant to the discussion and which may help to put it into perspective.
My Department's power to make grants to, or even in respect of, disabled people is restricted under present legislation to those who, though capable of gainful] employment, are so severely disabled that without financial help of one kind or another they could not be expected to obtain or retain employment or work on their own account, either for ever or for a very long time. This is a problem of considerable social and humanitarian seriousness, as the hon. Gentleman obviously recognises.
Although the debate tonight has focused on a particular aspect of the help my Department gives to such people, it may help if I were to spend a few moments on a more general appraisal of the help we can give under Section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944.
I would not wish the House to gain the impression that my Department is at all niggardly in its provisions under this head. On the contrary. For example, our current annual expenditure on the severely disabled is about £9 million. This is mainly taken up by the cost of providing sheltered employment, whether by Remploy nationally, through Government partnership with local authorities in particular areas, or with voluntary bodies in respect of special classes of severely disabled people.
In this sphere, our announced policy is one of expansion. Remploy, for example, has been asked to increase its


present labour force of 7,600 severely disabled employees—itself a record figure—to as high a figure as 8,000 to 8,500 by 1975, giving the usual priority to areas of high unemployment. We pay £55,000 a year for the maintenance of the Duchess of Gloucester House, which is a home for men and women who, though suffering from paraplegia, are able to hold down jobs in ordinary industry.
We spend a further £29,000 on alleviating hardship among people whose severe disability puts them to special expense in the cost of daily travel to and from work. For example, those unable to drive themselves or to make proper use of public transport. Cases like this come before Ministers of my Department every day, often having been put forward by hon. Members.
We spend £10,000 annually on the supply of special aids to employment for severely disabled people. One example is braille micrometers which enable the disabled to take their place alongside perfectly fit people.
We try to interpret all these provisions flexibly, sympathetically and indeed generously, bearing in mind the special circumstances under which these grants are made.
I quite understand that in contrast to those large sums, our annual expenditure on capital grants to set people up in small businesses of their own does not seem to be on the same scale, running, as it is, at a more restricted rate of only about £1,000 a year, with an average cost of £200 per case in the last two years.
Perhaps I can explain the reasons for this apparently rather disappointing record. In the first place, the dividing line between this scheme and other arrangements sometimes fluctuates—after all, we are concerned with helping people rather than operating water-tight schemes in separate compartments.
The fact is that some of the help we give under our schemes for providing special employment aids is tantamount to setting people up in business on their own account, for example by the conversion of a telephone switchboard for the use of a blind operator, the provision of an electronic typewriter, or the installation of a special telephone to enable a

housebound person to undertake gainful employment, which would not be possible at all without this special aid. So, when we consider our scheme for setting people up in business on their own account, we are really looking at only one aspect of a rather larger question.
But I should like to emphasise particularly, at this point, that we are dealing always with a closely defined group of people, namely those unemployed registered severely disabled people who are suitable and available for gainful employment, but who, as the hon. Member of all people will recognise, battle manfully against considerable odds with distinctive courage in so many circumstances.
That total number is currently about 12,000 throughout the country, all of whom are known individually to my Department through our various disablement officers. A fair proportion are young people with many years of life still ahead of them.
We next have to consider, of that number, those who are capable not merely of sheltered employment, but of running their own businesses. Then one has to consider the chances of success of a particular business in a given area under certain economic circumstances and competitive markets. All these factors have to be considered.
It is, I should have thought, clear that the numbers of such people who can sensibly be helped under a scheme of capital grants is unlikely ever to be high. The hon. Member knows from my answer to his recent Question, to which he referred, that only about eight people a year are helped in this way. That represents about one third of all applicants; and of the limited number of people helped, only about a half make a success of their venture.
In the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that we do not pay many capital grants to individuals for this purpose from public funds. Neither it is surprising that the sums granted are normally small.
For those modest enterprises that we are asked to support, a small grant is all that is usually necessary, and usually all that is requested. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is vitually important in the interests of the person just as much as in the interests of safeguarding public funds


that those concerned should be properly and adequately screened.

Mr. Neil Marten: What is the average type of job that these people do when they get this money?

Mr. Smith: It varies considerably over a wide range, going back over the years. Generally speaking, it would be what my hon. Friend would regard as reasonably modest. I have in mind sub-postmaster-ships, small shops, and very small manufacturing concerns, which an individual can cope with by himself or perhaps in co-operation with someone else. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and, if he cares to have it, I shall send him a comprehensive list of cases.
There is the point that the hon. Member for Oldham, West raised about the possibility of more publicity about the scheme. He implied that it should be better known. I can see that there may be arguments for and against. But we have some years' experience of the way that the scheme has worked in practice under successive Governments, and certainly our conclusion has been that indiscriminate publicity would be unwise, not because we are reluctant to make grants but because we know that many applicants will have to be rejected and that many of these businesses set up are likely to fail in practice. In effect, people sometimes have to be saved from themselves.
I am told that this is also the experience of the Department of Health and Social Security in connection with the previous arrangements where by war pensioners could commute their pensions in certain circumstances, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman disputes this. However, I gather that these arrangements are now changed and that this has been the subject of correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and that Department. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not in a position to comment on that because it does not come into the remit of Ministers in my Department.
Given the general experience that many businesses assisted by us fail, often through no fault of the person concerned, naturally we are all the more reluctant to arouse false hopes and consequent distress, bearing in mind that we are

dealing always in this context with severely handicapped people who need their morale boosting rather than depressing.
In practice, we find that our disablement resettlement officers at employment exchanges know all those who might be eligible, and our staff is instructed about the scheme and advises severely disabled people accordingly.
Having said all that, I should add that I have no wish to seem negative or indifferent about a subject which is agreed betwen the two sides of the House as being so important. I cannot but agree, as I said at the outset, that the case for some expansion has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman with cogency and conviction. As it happens, I am especially susceptible to many of his points since, recently in the Department, we ourselves have been looking, as part of a more general review, at this aspect of the Department's work. I expect that a report on the matter will be available shortly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I agree that this method of resettlement, where practicable, is in many ways excellent, not least for the morale and well being of the severly handicapped persons concerned. On the basis of the report which we expect to receive shortly, and bearing very much in mind the hon. Gentleman's points, I will consider whether it might not be practicable and desirable to expand our present scheme further for the benefit of the people concerned and of the community as a whole. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to raise the subject tonight. It has given me an opportunity to ventilate it further from the Treasury Bench.
I conclude, however, by emphasising that, given the limitations within which the scheme operates and bearing in mind what I have said, any expansion is bound to be relatively modest. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot discuss figures tonight, although he advanced some interesting figures which I promise to study. The whole matter is worthy of careful consideration, and that is what we shall give to it.
I think that both sides of the House are united in trying all the time to find more ways in which those courageous


people who struggle on in employment under the most tremendous handicaps should be assisted to every possible degree by the Government of the day. Certainly, while I have any connection with the Department of Employment, these people

will always have the utmost priority over things which we are able to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.